Food: Two-For-One Offers
 - Question

Baroness Walmsley: To ask His Majesty’s Government on the basis of what health evidence, if any, they have postponed the planned ban on two-for-one offers for foods high in fat, salt and sugar.

Lord Markham: The volume price promotion restrictions have been delayed for two years while we prioritise the implementation of the location restrictions. This is the most impactful policy for reducing children’s calorie consumption, and accounts for 96% of the expected health benefits of the promotions policy. Kantar data suggests that it is working. The evidence suggests that this will have the biggest impact on tackling obesity.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his reply, but according to the Food Foundation’s most recent Broken Plate report, the most deprived 20% of families would have to spend half of their disposable income on food to comply with the Government’s healthy diet advice. Bearing that in mind, why are the Government continuing to allow retailers to sell HFSS foods, which can make people ill, at a discount? Do the government really want to encourage people to buy cheap food that could, in the end, kill them?

Lord Markham: First, I thank the noble Baroness for her tireless work in this space. I think we have shown that our restrictions are absolutely placed to inform and educate people so that they can have a healthy diet. I mentioned what we have done on location—the so-called pester power avoidance. It is estimated that these measures will reduce calorific intake by 96%. That is the prize that we are looking at here.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Health actually believes in public health policy, because his recent speech at the Centre for Policy Studies—I watched all of it—indicates he does not?

Lord Markham: He definitely does. He was very much behind these measures. Just look at what we are doing in the smoking space, through the swapping out of cigarettes for vapes—another example of where we are taking action. As I mentioned, the evidence from Kantar suggests that it is working.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, if a product is marketed legally in the United Kingdom, why should His Majesty’s Government feel they have to interfere at all with the marketing of that product? I understand the point about education and totally accept it, but is it not wrong for His Majesty’s Government to restrict what is a legally marketed product?

Lord Markham: We are trying to educate, inform and nudge. The best example of all is encouraging the industry to reformulate its foods to be healthier. At this point, I am glad to say that, since we introduced these restrictions, Mars, Galaxy, Bounty and Snickers have reformulated, and even Mr Kipling’s Deliciously Good cakes are compliant.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, next week it will be three years since the Government committed to legislate to end the promotion of high-fat, salt and sugar foods by volume. Would a reasonable person think that this commitment has been met when the legislation has been passed but not implemented, and will not be for another couple of years?

Lord Markham: As I mentioned, the key is giving industry time to adjust so that it can reformulate. We would all agree that, if you can get the same taste but it is a lot healthier, with less fat, salt and sugar, that must be a good outcome. The examples that I just gave show that, and it is working.

Baroness Boycott: The NHS Food Scanner is promoting to children a number of ultra-processed food items. Do the Government not think that this is quite perverse given the new knowledge about what exactly ultra-processed food means? It is not just about the sugars, salts and fat but about the chemical destruction and reformulation of foodstuffs into something else.

Lord Markham: As I mentioned in answer to a Question on ultra-processed food yesterday, as a definition that is not particularly helpful because wholemeal bread, baked beans and cereals are all examples of ultra-processed food. The real point is the content of the food, and that is what our regulations should look to.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, when the anti-obesity strategy was published, this ban was said to be supporting food affordability, citing evidence that multi-buy offers such as “buy one, get one free” increase the amount that people spend on foods by around 20% but often on foods high in fat, sugar and salt. With the Government now making the opposite argument to support this postponement, do they no longer stand by the evidence? Would a ban on these deals make it easier or harder for those who are struggling to get by?

Lord Markham: As we have mentioned before, our general direction of travel is to educate, reformulate and give people the best chances through having choices, and a good start in life through the fresh fruit and vegetables that we have in schools. Those are the things that will really make the difference.

Lord Lansley: Does my noble friend the Minister recall, on that exact point about access to fresh fruit and vegetables, the very successful scheme that we pioneered about 12 years ago with the Association of Convenience Stores so that corner shops would carry fresh fruit and vegetables close to the till and make them accessible, with us carrying the risk of wastage? That led to a significant increase in corner shops selling fresh fruit and vegetables.

Lord Markham: To me, that is a great example of how working in co-operation to allow people to make the right choices is the best way. For instance, 78% of shoppers have said that they are in favour of not having unhealthy items at the till because they know that they give in to pester power. That is why this has been focus of what we have done.

Baroness Bull: My Lords, notwithstanding the interesting “legal but harmful” point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I think that most of the House would agree that reducing high-fat, sugar and salt content is a good idea. However, the Minister has at least twice mentioned reduction of calories. Does he acknowledge and recognise that while one way to address obesity is calorie reduction, it is not an appropriate message for everybody and it certainly is not the sole cause of obesity across this country?

Lord Markham: The noble Baroness is correct; this is a complicated area, and a number of measures need to be taken. The best thing is the promotion of healthy foods, and the fresh fruit and veg initiatives that we have talked about today are perfect examples of that.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, some years ago, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly looked at obesity in children, during the course of which we went to Amsterdam to look at what was going on there. Two of the things that were very enlightening were educating children in schools and educating pregnant mothers. What about that?

Lord Markham: I am aware of the Amsterdam initiative. Off the back of that, the OECD said that there were four main strands to what countries should be doing: first, information and education, such as the good examples I spoke about; secondly, increasing healthy choices through the reformulation of foods, which again is something we are doing; thirdly, the modifying of costs—the sugar tax, which has reduced sugar consumption by as much as 40%, is a perfect example of that; and, fourthly, restrictions on where product placement should take place. I am absolutely familiar with the initiative in Amsterdam, and am pleased to see that we have taken action on a lot of those things.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: Is the Minister not ashamed about what has happened to children’s health while the Conservatives have been in power since 2010? We have more obese children than ever before, and a plethora of policies which would work if  implemented, yet so many are delayed. Will the Minister give a commitment to go back and look at the regulations governing children’s school meals? They were changed in 2014, with permission granted to give children more sugar. The Government were reviewing this in 2019 and 2020, but that stopped because of Covid. Will the Minister give a commitment again to start a review? Even if they cannot implement it, the next Government could.

Lord Markham: The noble Lord is correct: good school meals are fundamental to all of this. My understanding is that the review is something that the Government are looking to do, but I will happily provide more details on what the plan is.

Lord Morse: My Lords, can I just test with the Minister whether there is still a commitment to the policy of banning two-for-one promotions? If there is, is there an effective deal going on with the food producers that they will change certain processes if this ban continues to be pushed backwards and effectively talked out of effect?

Lord Markham: There is absolutely the commitment for October 2025. The tactic behind that is to give industry the time to make its food healthier. That is exactly what it is doing in the examples I mentioned, including the Deliciously Good cakes. It is good to see industry respond in that way.

Independent Review: Armed Forces Homosexuality Ban
 - Question

Lord Lexden: To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish the report of the independent review, chaired by Lord Etherton, into the impact on military veterans of the pre-2000 ban on homosexuality in the armed forces, along with their response to the report.

Baroness Goldie: The Government have today published the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and accepted in principle the vast majority of the recommendations. As the Defence Secretary set out, while we agree with the intent behind them, there are a number which we will deliver in a slightly different way from that described in the report. We will set out these differences when we publish the Government’s full response to the review after the Summer Recess. Earlier today in the other place, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence apologised. Today in this House I repeat those apologies. From this Dispatch Box, I apologise on behalf of the Government and the Armed Forces, and I am profoundly sorry for all that our LGBT personnel suffered.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, is it not an interesting coincidence that this Question should come up on the very day that the Government finally published the excellent and long-awaited report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton? Could it possibly be that my little Question, tabled a month ago, helped in some small way to end the delay in releasing this report—so meticulously prepared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and delivered to the Government in May, bang on time—which had distressed many LGBT veterans? I hope that the Statement delivered in the Commons by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today will be repeated in your Lordships’ House before the Recess. Finally, does not the full apology delivered by our Prime Minister today set the scene quite admirably for the substantial reparation that must be made to LGBT veterans who served their country with devotion, only to have their lives ruined because of their sexuality?

Baroness Goldie: I much respect the views being expressed by my noble friend. An eminent theologian once said to me that anyone who believes in coincidences must lead a very boring life and I could never accuse my noble friend of that. He makes an important point. There was a desire to bring the report forward and to publish it and I absolutely accept that my noble friend’s Question has been most timely in respect of this Chamber. On the matter of further procedure within the Chamber, he will understand that that is for others—my noble friends the Leader and the Chief Whip, with their counterparts through the usual channels—to determine. However, I am confident that, as the Secretary of State indicated in the other place, this Chamber will want to debate this report and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for a forensic and meticulously comprehensive report. It is a most informative, extremely disturbing and, at times, appallingly repugnant read. It has shone light where light needed to be shone—there is not a shadow of a doubt—and we are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord for his assiduous work and his contribution to this vital issue.

Lord Cashman: My Lords, I too commend this report and congratulate the noble and learned Lord on what, as the Minister has said, is a deeply harrowing yet forensic report. I think it will put right the wrongs that have been done to LGBT service personnel across the generations. I pay tribute to Elaine Chambers and Robert Ely, who set up Rank Outsiders in the early 1990s, which campaigned to end the ban on gays serving in the military. Will the Minister consider setting up an active task force to ensure that the 49 recommendations across government departments are brought forward, not least on service records, pensions and compensation? Further delay will only cause deeper tragedy.

Baroness Goldie: I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks, and I think there was a lot of sympathy across the Chamber with what he said. I would observe that, as the Secretary of State was explicit about today in the other place, we are going to look comprehensively at the recommendations but we need to do that in conjunction with organisations such as that to which the noble Lord referred; and I pay tribute to them. They  were indeed the founders of the pressure to ensure that at some point this was all laid open, exposed and examined and they deserve credit for their persistence. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the other place that we will work extensively over the summer in consultation with all those who have an interest in this. We want to get it right and ensure that the recommendations so appropriately articulated by the noble and learned Lord get due consideration and we all understand what the consequences are and what the best route for delivery may be. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said we accept the spirit of the recommendations and I repeat that in this Chamber.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, speaking in the other place, the Secretary of State assumed that Members would have had a chance to read the testimonials. Unless people have done a speed-reading course, I suspect that so far we have not been able to do that. The Secretary of State also said that the Government have implemented six of the 49 recommendations already, without stipulating what they were, other than the apology. Can the Minister elaborate? Can she say also whether there will be an apology to the families of those LGBT veterans who are no longer with us but whose lives were blighted by the ban and whose families were therefore affected?

Baroness Goldie: I can say to the noble Baroness that already we have taken proactive measures such as implementing various inclusive policies—that was important —including the provision of pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis. We have introduced a guide for parents of LGBT children and LGBT+ allies training. We have several thriving LGBT+ staff networks and a LGBT+ community which regularly parades in Fighting with Pride marches and does so with pride. I had the privilege of meeting them at a reception last year and my right honourable friend the Minister for Defence, People, Veterans and Service Families was with them this year. In addition, we have today launched an “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” GOV.UK page, which is now live and available for anyone who was impacted by the policy to explore the support, services and restorative measures available to veterans. The recommendations also specifically provided for apologies, which we acknowledge as being absolutely necessary. In relation to the successors and relatives of those who have died, I think the apologies of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were all-encompassing. The Prime Minister’s was on behalf of the British state to all affected.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: Does the Minister agree that my noble and learned friend’s report should be seen as a paradigm across other sectors in both the public sector and the private sector; for example, in banking, where there is still discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, often fairly covert?

Baroness Goldie: I agree with the noble Lord. I think “paradigm” is a very appropriate noun to attribute to the noble and learned Lord’s report. I am disturbed to hear that there are other areas and sectors where such behaviour is lurking. My advice to anybody  in those sectors is to call it out, expose it, shine a light on it and make sure that the miscreants, transgressors and culprits are all put into public view and dealt with appropriately.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on his Question and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his report, which I have managed to look at. I am sorry that I have not yet read it. It was good to hear the Minister’s apology on behalf of the nation, as well as the apologies of the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. I think all of us would wish to join in that apology. It is important for us in the remarks that we make today to pay tribute to those who have had the bravery to come forward and share their testimonies with us. For those who have not read the report, it is horrific, with unscientific methods of investigation into individuals, prejudice, discrimination, bullying and harassment, and Armed Forces personnel having their medals, which were often given for gallantry, taken away. It is an appalling saga, and let us hope that the recommendations are implemented quickly and that we can move forward out of this horror and ensure that in today’s Armed Forces none of that prejudice exists.

Baroness Goldie: I associate myself with everything the noble Lord has said. I was struck by part of the narrative. At page 53 of the report, the noble and learned Lord wrote:
“In broad terms, the responses to the Call for Evidence paint a vivid picture of overt homophobia at all levels of the armed forces during the period 1967 to 2000 and of the bullying that inevitably reflected it”.
The noble Lord is correct that some of the testimonies are absolutely nauseating and reveal treatment and behaviour that are beyond belief. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that to have the courage to come forward—it is obvious from the report how many people did come forward—was an extraordinary commitment and demonstration of bravery, and I cannot congratulate, commend or thank them too much because without their evidence, despite all the best efforts of the noble and learned Lord, this report would perhaps lack the impact and the undeniable punch which it has had.

Oil and Gas Windfall Tax
 - Question

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the oil and gas windfall tax on investment and jobs, and the capacity of the energy sector and supply chain to deliver key components of the transition for achieving the United Kingdom’s net zero objectives.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, the Government introduced the energy profits levy to respond to exceptionally high prices that  mean that oil and gas companies are benefiting from extraordinary profits. The Government have been clear that we want to see producers reinvest profits to support the economy, jobs and the UK’s energy security, which is why we have introduced generous investment allowances. Our North Sea transition deal reflects the key role of the sector in that energy transition.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: I thank the Minister for that reply. As we increase our efforts to meet net zero, which we clearly must, does he agree that through all the projections to and through net zero, we will continue to use fossil fuel, albeit on a declining basis? Therefore, is it not essential, because Norway has said that it will produce every ounce of oil and gas that is commercial in its sector, that we do nothing to prevent the transition being led by the energy industry, which is increasing its investment in the necessary technology such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and green electricity, and that we need to ensure that it can continue to do that?

Lord Callanan: I am very happy to agree with the noble Lord. I am tempted to observe that he might want to talk to some of his colleagues on his Benches about that message. He is right that it makes much more sense as we go through the transition to obtain those resources from our own fields rather than import them at a much higher carbon content.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and to the previous questions I have raised on this matter in Treasury Questions. The point is that the EPL has had a dramatic effect on investment in North Sea oil. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks what assessment the Government have made of it. Would the Minister include in that assessment an analysis of the bids that have been made—for example, for Chevron oil in the Republic of Congo and in the Gulf of Mexico—by North Sea oil companies that are no longer investing in the North Sea?

Lord Callanan: My noble friend makes an important point. Taxation levels are obviously a matter for the Chancellor and the Treasury. However, there are a number of concerning stories from investors that they have pulled out of investments in the North Sea; in fact, one remarked that parts of Africa were a more stable tax environment.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the £20 billion they put into the small modular reactor enterprise, and the work they have done for the STEP fission reactor. Does the Minister agree that the best net-zero way of ensuring that we have energy to provide the electrical baseload is to press ahead rapidly with Hinkley C and Sizewell because, if we do not get this nuclear power online, we are not going to make it?

Lord Callanan: I do agree with the noble Lord. Nuclear reactors, whether it be Sizewell or Hinkley, and small modular reactors will play an important  part in the net-zero transition. Of course, we want a diverse supply mix; we want as much renewable energy as possible, but nuclear will play an important role.

Lord Stern of Brentford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Paris Agreement implies the use of much less oil and gas in the 2030s than now? Therefore, issuing permits for exploration that usually requires at least seven years to generate flows makes little sense, particularly as the effect on prices and security would be negligible. Does he recognise that issuing such permits is essentially enabling and fostering bets on climate failure?

Lord Callanan: No, I would not agree with the noble Lord, I am afraid; he is absolutely dead wrong. Even with any new licences that might be issued in the UK, UK production will continue to decline at the rate of about 7% a year. It is estimated that global production decline needs to be about 3% to 4% in order to ensure the net-zero transition, so we will be declining at a faster rate than what is required globally.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, the windfall tax that the Minister mentions taxes profits but also gives a substantial kickback on investment. On renewables, the levy is against revenue and there is no such kickback. When will the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero stop discriminating against renewables?

Lord Callanan: My Lords, what the noble Lord refers to as a “kickback” is actually an investment allowance. If I am right, the same noble Lord was asking me about reducing flaring and about introducing electrification of fields. It is those investment allowances that pay for the very policies that he asked me to introduce.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, in concurring with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his statement that oil and gas are a vital part of transition to net zero, can I ask the Minister what the situation is with the Rosebank oil project, which is a world-class asset and one of the largest of its kind anywhere in the world?

Lord Callanan: I thank my noble friend for the kind invitation to respond to that. He will understand that I cannot comment on licensing decisions.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, analysis of the Office for Budget Responsibility data in May this year showed the extent to which oil and gas firms were able to reduce their energy profits levy while still making record profits. Between this loophole, the decision against a 78% rate and the decision not to backdate to catch all the surging profits, it is estimated that over £10 billion of potential tax will be missed between 2022-23 and 2023-24. I ask the Minister: have the Government given any consideration to fixing the levy to deliver the full benefits proposed since these figures came out?

Lord Callanan: I do not know where the noble Baroness gets her figures. I responded in my previous answer to the question about investment allowances—policies that the Opposition have called for. The energy  profits levy is expected to raise about £26 billion and is set at a rate of 75%, which is one of the highest in the world. I realise that the Labour Party’s policy is to tax firms into extinction, but we need to leave them with some profits. Much of the profits of oil and gas companies goes towards pension funds and other shareholders which many pensioners and others rely on for their income.

Baroness Sheehan: My Lords, the IEA’s report World Energy Outlook 2022 is clear that the solution to the energy trilemma of economic, climate and security issues is to accelerate the move to greener energy. For us in the UK, among other things, that means urgently equipping our workforce with transferable skills for the energy transition. What are the Government doing to make sure that a single offshore energy skills passport that aligns training standards in all offshore energy sectors is introduced?

Lord Callanan: The noble Baroness is essentially right: of course we need to transition to renewable energy sources, and that is exactly what we are doing. The North Sea transition deal between the Government and North Sea companies is helping to move them, as far as the transition is going, to transfer their skills to many of the new industries. For example, many drilling companies operating in the North Sea also drill geothermal heat sources to use for renewable energy. The two things are not mutually incompatible.

Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, what assessment is the North Sea Transition Authority making of the alignment of company commitments, especially on net- zero targets covering scopes 1, 2 and 3, over the short, medium and long term as well as company alignment on capital expenditure towards those targets? Can the Minister assure us that, before licensing any expansion in North Sea exploration, the authority will factor this into consideration when judging projects under alignment with the UK’s net-zero legal commitment?

Lord Callanan: As I said in response to a previous question, I cannot comment on any licensing decisions—we will know about them before too long—but I can assure the right reverend Prelate that all the appropriate considerations are being taken into account by the Government and the North Sea Transition Authority on the issuing of those licences.

Lord Rooker: I agree 100% with the Government’s nuclear policy but, bearing in mind that we want the success of renewables and the end of oil and gas, what assessment has been made of the fact that by 2050—which is not that far away—when the oil and gas is gone, we will be relying on nuclear for intermittency? That will leave the nuclear situation as a stranded asset, because it really does not work that way; it has got to be a formal baseload. Once the rest has gone and we are on renewables and left with nuclear, how can it be intermittent?

Lord Callanan: I totally understand the point the noble Lord is making. He is right that many renewables are very cheap but intermittent, and nuclear  will contribute towards the baseload. He is asking for long-term energy storage; the answer is hydrogen. We can store large quantities of hydrogen—some really exciting projects are coming forward—and it can then be burned, with no emissions, in a power station to provide the supplies that we will need when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

House Of Lords: Appointments System
 - Question

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the conclusion of the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House that recent developments “have brought the appointments system into question”.

Lord True: My Lords, of course, the Government will carefully note the report. Our view is that the life peerage system works well—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord True: There are certain beneficiaries of the life peerage system who seem to disagree.
We think that members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission do a good job and I have every confidence that new members coming in will do the same. To tweet this morning, as the noble Baroness did, about “ongoing corrupt patronage” from Prime Ministers does not help confidence in the appointments system.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: I am very flattered that the noble Lord knows about my tweets. That is very nice. It is obvious that the system of prime ministerial patronage is not working. Various Prime Ministers over the past couple of years have clearly put people into your Lordships’ House who have no intention of contributing to our work and probably do not have the skills to do so anyway. This is not about the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which I admire very much. The Green Party believes that that system is archaic and corrupt. Does the Leader of the House agree with me even a tiny bit?

Lord True: I very often agree with the noble Baroness, except I have never tweeted in my life, and I recommend her not to. The policy of the Green Party is to replace the system of appointment—which has given us all the excellent noble Lords here on these Benches in their parties—with a PR-democratically elected Chamber. Frankly, that would simply replace an accountable appointments system, where Prime Ministers are openly responsible for who they appoint, with an unaccountable appointments system of lists drawn up by secretive party secretariats.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—

Lord Grocott: My Lords—

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, we have lots of time. Let us hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, then we very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, when the last reform of the House took place between 1997 and 1999, the then Government stated clearly that, ad interim, it was the Government’s policy, agreed with the Conservative Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Opposition in the Lords, that no party should have a disproportionate number of Peers in the Lords.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I remind Conservative Peers that on a current poll basis the Conservatives have exactly twice the poll percentage of public support that we do, so we are not overrepresented.
Particularly under Boris Johnson, the Conservatives have broken that agreement. Do the Government not accept that we are now in a position where any change of government would have to be accompanied either by the voluntary resignation of a substantial number of Conservative Peers or the appointment of a large number of new governmental Peers, which would be bad for the size of the House?

Lord True: My Lords, I think the question of “disproportionate” was answered by Members of your Lordships’ House rather than me, so I will not add to the pain of those Benches. I think that there needs to be—and I have advocated this publicly in the House and privately—better representation of His Majesty’s Opposition in your Lordships’ House. I do not think it is generally acceptable that His Majesty’s Opposition should have fewer representatives in this House than the Cross Benches. I recognise that, and for all the criticism of the previous Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, he approved the appointment of Labour Peers. I hope that will go forward.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, a part of this report that I particularly enjoyed was the piece saying that
“the ending of the hereditary peer by-elections … is crucial”.
There are two more of these wretched men-only by-elections pending as they stand. I appeal to the Leader, who talks about proportionality. It is his responsibility—and he knows the constitution well enough—not just to speak for his party but as Leader of the House to speak for the whole House. The whole House is absolutely clear by an overwhelming majority, repeatedly tested in votes on this issue, that hereditary Peer by-elections should end. I ask him to go to his colleagues in the Cabinet, tell them that there is no defence of this system whatever—I challenge him to provide one—and say that a simple two-clause Bill would scrap them, which would be consistent with the wishes of nearly everyone in this Chamber.

Lord True: I think the Government have other legislative priorities. The noble Lord knows how highly I esteem him. He is a bit like the elder Cato,  who ended every speech in the Roman Senate by saying that Carthage must be destroyed. Unfortunately, Romans later looked back and said that when Carthage was destroyed was perhaps the beginning of the end of Rome. I am sure that, one day, the hereditary peerage will—and that has been long accepted—depart this House. Many will be sad of that. When it does, the full gaze of the public will turn on the life peerage and how that, in its turn, will stand the test of time.

Lord Cormack: My Lords—

Lord Shinkwin: My Lords, overall numbers obviously matter, but so does the number of Members of your Lordships’ House with a diversity of lived experience. The greater ethnic diversity of the recent intakes of Members to your Lordships’ House obviously strengthens us hugely in the eyes of the public, but will my noble friend The Lord Privy Seal draw No. 10’s attention to the fact that, as compared with 20% of the population who are disabled, only 1% of your Lordships’ House has long-term lived experience of disability and encourage the Prime Minister to remedy that disproportionality?

Lord True: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. I certainly will pass on that message, as indeed others that I have referred to. I think the whole House looks with the most enormous admiration and respect at—and gains tremendously from the presence of—those who have the kind of lived experience that my noble friend refers to.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Leader said that the Government would take note of the report. Would he go rather further and look at it? It is cogent and carefully argued. If there is not time for legislation, there is time and opportunity for the Prime Minister to take action on issues that the public object to—not the work that this House does, but the size of the House and the method of appointment. The Prime Minister could limit the number of appointments and he could say that the Appointments Commission should look at the suitability and ability to contribute of Members who are nominated by the political parties, as it does for those who are nominated to the Cross Benches.

Lord True: My Lords, on the size of the House, since January 2022 it has in fact grown by four—plus seven net Conservatives and plus three net Labour. I understand that many noble Lords are agitated about the size of the House. However, I sometimes wish that the House would concentrate on extolling the great and good things that your Lordships do every day and the challenge that your Lordships give to the Government to improve legislation, and not concentrate so much on running down the House. I am not accusing the noble Baroness of that, but the reality is that we have just had in this House one of the most contested pieces of legislation, where 417 Peers voted.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that this is the fifth report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee. I am sure he senses the huge exasperation that so little has changed since  the first report. Those of us who value—and I concur with him on this point—the work of this House and believe that it matters are frustrated that the two most serious and justified complaints are ones that Members of this House can do absolutely nothing about. As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the size of the House and the appointments system bring us into criticism. The work of this House, whether people agree or not with our decisions, does not receive criticism; it is often praised—it is the size of the House and the appointments system. We do not have to agree with everything in the Lord Speaker’s report to know that something has to change. There needs to be grown-up, cross-party, serious discussions on these two key issues. I am ready; are the Government?

Lord True: My Lords, I wanted the noble Baroness to have time to intervene. I repeat with some humility the fact that I think we worry too much about the nominal size of the House. A House which has certain experts in it and people who come here occasionally and make a great contribution has to be larger than a full-time House. I repeat that we had 417 Peers voting on the deeply contested legislation on illegal migration on Monday. The House calls for a limit of 600 Members; we very rarely get that number voting.
As for discussions, the most important things are the role of the House, the way it conducts itself and, if I may say so, the agreements across the House within the usual channels. I am always keen to facilitate the House operating in a sensible mode. Size was not a problem in the late 1940s when the Labour Party was massively outnumbered, because there was an understanding about the way in which the House should operate. The House should concentrate on doing its role in that sort of way, and I am very happy to have those kinds of discussions. We should worry a little less about the nominal size of the House.

Bank Accounts
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Asked by Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the recent assurances from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, what action they intend to take to ensure that no person’s bank account should be closed for political reasons.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In asking this Question, I declare that I have a bank account with NatWest.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the Government unequivocally support the right to lawful free speech and consider it unacceptable for banks or other payment service providers to terminate contracts on these grounds. Earlier this year, the Government launched a call for evidence which included questions on the issue of payment  account terminations and freedom of expression. We will soon set out plans for enhanced requirements applying to the termination of payment accounts.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming that it is the Government’s view that no bank account should be closed for political reasons. Does she therefore agree that it is not for a bank to judge whether someone’s personal or political views accord with the so-called “values” of the bank and that that is not a reason for closing an account? Equally, does she agree that it is not for a bank to judge whether someone’s views are out of tone with wider society and then use that as the pretext for closing an account? Is this not a fundamental issue which ought to concern everyone of every party—left, right, centre or flat earth—who might all be the next person to suffer under what is happening? Will my noble friend ensure that the number of cases that have been reported recently, which, prima facie, seem to indicate that accounts may have been closed for political reasons, are referred to the regulator and investigated? Will she confirm that this a fundamental right of free speech in a free society?

Baroness Penn: I absolutely agree with my noble friend and reiterate once again that the Government unequivocally support the right to lawful free speech and consider it completely unacceptable for banks or other payment service providers to terminate contracts on these grounds. We issued a call for evidence that covered these issues and will consider all evidence as part of that. As my noble friend noted, I am sure that the regulator will also want to consider these matters.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that part of the problem is that her department and the FCA were very slow to take action against the banks for the unwarranted interference in parliamentarians’ lives because they failed to operate the guidelines on PEPs appropriately and proportionately? Can we expect to see the FCA take disciplinary action against the banks that are doing this?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, it is important to distinguish between any action that may have been taken on freedom of speech grounds, or on the grounds of people’s political views, and the PEP regulations, which are to do with people’s status as politically exposed persons. However, the noble Lord is right, and we have discussed this issue in the House many times: the banks have not always applied those regulations and guidance as they should. That is why we had two amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act to take action in this area, both to amend the regulations and for the FCA to review its guidance and the banks’ adherence to it. My right honourable friend the Economic Secretary has written to the FCA again recently to reiterate the importance of that review and to say that, if any action can be taken during the conduct of that review, we will expect that to happen also.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a bank. I also have an account with Coutts Bank—although, by the way,  I have nothing like the wealth that has been mentioned. I point out to my noble friend that Coutts Bank is owned by NatWest, and the largest shareholder in NatWest by a long way is the Government. Should the Government, as a shareholder, not say to NatWest that this kind of conduct is unacceptable? Also, what is the FCA doing? On the basis of what we read in the newspapers, Coutts Bank has been in breach of rule 4, which requires it to treat customers fairly.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, as my noble friend has noted, the Government have a shareholding in NatWest Group, but it is managed at arm’s length and on a commercial basis by UK Government Investments and I do think that is the right approach. My noble friend also noted the role of the FCA. He is right that it is for the FCA and other relevant independent bodies to determine whether any breach of regulatory requirements has taken place—so I will not comment on that, but I would expect them to do so.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, I gently suggest to the Minister that the issue of PEPs and the issue of people expressing their political views and then being treated badly are in fact entangled one with the other. I am just outraged that Nigel Farage was denied a bank account, but I was also denied a bank account at Chase UK this year because I could not produce physical payslips for my husband, who died 17 years ago. That had to be a specious reason, and I suspect that the real reason is that I am a Liberal Democrat who speaks out on issues in a way that the bank does not particularly like.
So I will just say that the PEP regime has got completely out of hand. It has been outsourced to consultants who make their money from dire and irrational interpretations. Will the Government please press the FCA not just to renew sensible guidance but to make sure that it is followed? Could she please tell it to focus its energies on the real abusers and the real money launderers?

Baroness Penn: Well, I can reassure the noble Baroness that that is exactly what the amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Act requires the FCA to do. It should look not just at the appropriateness of the guidance but at firms’ adherence to that guidance. We have asked it to get feedback from those who are affected by this guidance and take particular account of the impact on family members, which is an issue that many noble Lords have raised with me. We expect the FCA to follow that rigorously. The FCA is required to provide an update to this House on the progress of that work within a few months of it starting, and I am sure noble Lords will pay close attention to that.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, I know it is customary for children to blame their parents for everything, but will the Minister extend her concern to credit cards? My daughter, who is a very modest earner and has had the same credit card provider for 20 years, is being investigated in depth, with every piece of financial information needing to be produced, and we can think of no reason other than that I am her mother.

Baroness Penn: The changes to the regulations that the Government are committed to and the review by the FCA do not just cover banks; they cover the provision of credit cards and all other services that are covered by the anti-money laundering regulations relating to politically exposed persons.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, on at least two occasions Lords Ministers have indicated that the complete integrity of the money-laundering regulations is more important than facilitating the export of armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine, even under export licence. In the light of what has happened recently, will the Minister agree either that this matter will be reviewed or to have a further meeting with me?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I am not sure that events recently pertain to the particular case raised by the noble Lord. I was pleased to meet with him and as I committed to then and commit to on an ongoing basis, we will continue to engage with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we have an understanding of the issue and that people do not face a wider systemic barrier.

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court: My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of C Hoare & Co. Does the Minister agree that customer confidentiality should lie at the heart of banking, and that a bank apparently commenting on the income and wealth of a customer is completely unacceptable?

Baroness Penn: I agree with the noble Lord on both points. When it comes to assessing whether that has taken place, that is a question for the regulator.

Lord Davies of Brixton: My Lords, I have to express a bit of concern about what I take to be the mood of the House. Will the Minister confirm that a PEP regime is essential, albeit one that is properly operated, and secondly, that if people cannot account properly for their income, it is right and proper for banks to refuse to continue an account?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, that is why it is important to distinguish between the PEP regime, which has caused problems for people, and questions about banks’ actions in relation to freedom of speech or political views. It is important, though, in both circumstances, whether you are a PEP or you have expressed any view that is lawfully held, that you have access to bank accounts. In taking forward our work on PEPs in particular, we are mindful of always maintaining our commitment to international standards in this area, and our amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act do just that.

Lord Swire: Has my noble friend had any discussions with her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the fact that some overseas missions find it impossible to open bank accounts in the UK? This happens the entire time, and it seems rather invidious to ask these people to come here to open embassies and then say they cannot bank when they are here.

Baroness Penn: FCDO colleagues have not raised this with me but if there is an issue, I will be more than happy to sit down with other departments and discuss what we can do about it.

Lord Livermore: My Lords, access to financial services should of course never be determined by a person’s political views, but just as those with assets of £1 million should not unduly be denied a bank account with Coutts & Co., so those with substantially less should not be denied access to basic banking services. Yet the Financial Conduct Authority estimates that more than 1 million people in the UK have no bank account and one in four people will experience financial exclusion at least once in their lives. The Government recently overturned Labour’s amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Act to require the FCA to have regard to financial inclusion. Do the Government now regret that decision?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I absolutely agree about the importance of financial inclusion, and we have seen significant progress on that issue in recent years, including through establishing provision of basic bank accounts. That means that anyone in society, whatever their means, has the right to access banking, and we will continue to promote access through our work on financial inclusion.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, my noble friend the Minister said that the Government had their shareholding handled at arm’s length, or words to that effect. I completely accept that, but the moral fact is that the Government are the largest shareholder, so should they not take a particular interest in this political issue?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, the Government have taken an interest in this issue, which is why we issued a call for evidence earlier this year that covered freedom of speech and bank account closure. That is the right avenue through which the Government should seek to address this issue, rather than through their shareholding in a particular bank.

Lord Blunkett: My Lords, I am fully in favour of the Government protecting the rights of the “Coutts one”, as they should be protecting the rights of the 1 million who cannot get a bank account. But is it not perverse, on the day that the Prime Minister has rightly apologised for the egregious treatment of LGBT people in the Armed Forces, for the Home Secretary to widen this debate into a full-frontal attack on equality, diversity and inclusion? Is that not totally unacceptable as well?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I think the point we can all agree on is that the right to lawful freedom of speech is fundamental. Where that has been seen to be brought into question through the provision of services, we have cause to worry.

Lord Fox: The Minister rightly upheld the need for access. One of the ways people access banks is through bricks and mortar branches in our towns and cities. These continue to be closed; every week banks  are closing. What conversations has her department had with banks about their closures and what was the content of those discussions?

Baroness Penn: This is an issue we have discussed, including during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act. The Government legislated in that Act to protect access to cash for consumers and business depositors, which will help people continue to access banking. Banking hubs are also being rolled out in areas that may be seeing closures, and those signed up to banking hubs have given a commitment that, where a hub is due to be opened in an area, the last bank will not shut until it is open.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, as the Minister will remember, I tabled an amendment to the financial services Bill on this very question—as distinct from PEPs—of political values closing down accounts, and I was told that evidence was being sought. Is the Minister concerned that the only reason we now know this is happening is not because of anything the Government have done, but because a high-profile figure is pursuing the issue and getting a lot of attention? Secondly, can the Minister comment more broadly on the danger of the corporate power of financial services being used to bully customers into accepting certain values of equality, diversity and inclusion that have nothing to do with equality or diversity in any real sense, but with imposing their views on customers, for fear they will get their accounts cut off?

Baroness Penn: I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s commitment to issuing a call for evidence included issues of payment account terminations and freedom of expression. I believe the call for evidence closed before the issue that prompted this Question came to light. The Government are delivering on their commitment.
I close by stating once again that the Government unequivocally support the right to lawful free speech and consider it unacceptable for banks or other payment service providers to terminate contracts on these grounds.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Baroness Penn: Moved by Baroness Penn
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Motion agreed.

Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL]
 - Commons Amendments

Motion on Amendments 1 to 6

Viscount Camrose: Moved by Viscount Camrose
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 6.
1: Clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”
2: Clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply if the regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers acting jointly.”
3: Clause 5, page 3, line 31, leave out paragraph (a)
4: Clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert—“(5A) “The appropriate authority”, in relation to regulations under subsection (2)(b), means—(a) in any case, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers acting jointly;(b) in a case in which all of the provision made by the regulations is within Scottish devolved competence, the Scottish Ministers.(5B) Provision is within Scottish devolved competence if it is provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament.”
5: Clause 5, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (6)
6: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—“Regulations under section 5(1) Any power to make regulations under section 5, so far as exercisable by the Secretary of State acting alone or by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers acting jointly, is exercisable by statutory instrument.(2) For regulations made under section 5 by the Scottish Ministers acting alone, see section 27 of the 2010 Act (Scottish statutory instruments).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under section 5 by the Secretary of State acting alone, or by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers acting jointly, may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4) Regulations made under section 5 by the Scottish Ministers acting alone, or by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers acting jointly, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the 2010 Act).(5) Where regulations are made under section 5 by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers acting jointly—(a) section 29 of the 2010 Act (affirmative procedure) applies in relation to the regulations as it applies in relation to devolved subordinate legislation (within the meaning of Part 2 of that Act) which is subject to the affirmative procedure, but as if references to a Scottish statutory instrument were to a statutory instrument, and(b) section 32 of the 2010 Act (laying) applies in relation to the laying before the Scottish Parliament of the statutory instrument containing the regulations as it applies in relation to the laying before that Parliament of a Scottish statutory instrument (within the meaning of Part 2 of that Act).(6) In this section “the 2010 Act” means the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”

Viscount Camrose: My Lords, the Government’s intention has always been that this Bill should apply UK-wide. In the process of delivering this ambition, we were able to confirm that legislative consent was not required from Northern Ireland or Wales. However, in the case of Scotland, private property law, as affected by this Bill, is a devolved matter and therefore legislative consent is necessary. As a result of amendments made to the Bill in the other place, we have received legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament.
The Bill has been amended to the effect that it now confers the delegated power in Clause 5(2)(b) additionally on Scottish Ministers both to exercise the power alone within areas of devolved competence and to act jointly with the Secretary of State. By including the option for Scottish Ministers to act alone and also to act jointly with the Secretary of State, the delegated powers can be exercised in a flexible manner that best suits the prevailing need for secondary legislation. Moreover, it avoids any future uncertainty as to whether matters are within the devolved competence of Scottish Ministers, particularly if they cut across devolved and reserved matters. The requirement in Clause 5(4) for the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers before exercising the power in Clause 5(2)(b) will be disapplied in circumstances where the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers act jointly to make regulations.
As noted earlier, while the Bill is unlikely to need future amendment, we believe that such changes are best delivered through concurrent delegated powers, which will allow both the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to make those changes. The amendments will therefore enable Scottish Ministers to make such regulations in a case in which all the provision made by the regulations is within Scottish devolved competence, and to act jointly with, or be consulted by, the Secretary of State in other cases.
The delegated powers previously afforded to the Secretary of State by the Bill are not substantively affected by this amendment. In view of this, Amendment 6 provides for regulations under Clause 5 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament.
In addition to these two substantive amendments, we have also had to include four consequential amendments to update and correct cross-references within the Bill. I hope noble Lords will acknowledge the requirement for the amendment to Clause 5 to change the delegated power and the consequential amendments that allow this new clause to be inserted into the Bill.
I reiterate the thanks that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay gave at Third Reading to all those involved in the passage of this transformational Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have studied the amendments closely and I can see the beneficial net effect of them. I guess that Amendment 4 is probably the most crucial to the package, and I think the noble Viscount was right to introduce them together in the way he did. I do not have much to say other than that, except to congratulate the Government on having the foresight to bring this legislation forward, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for the work he did both in the Special Public Bill Committee and on the Floor of the House in considering the legislation.
I have a question for the noble Viscount, which I asked the last time we considered the Bill. This is a very important and significant piece of legislation that will go a long way to making the passage of international trade much easier, considering the impact that it could have. It will make it much easier to trade across international boundaries, and the volume of trade is  such that removing the constraint on the use of electronic communication is extremely important. It is estimated that it could save as much as 15% of current transaction costs. That would be a considerable net benefit to the UK economy.
The one thing that worried and troubled me during our consideration was that there did not seem to be an implementation plan. When I quizzed the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on this, I was less than convinced by his response; I hope he was more convinced than I was. I do not see a plan yet. There is a role for one of the government departments involved in this to take a lead. It is really important that it does so in a way that works well with business, and consults business and all other interests to ensure that we get the maximum from this legislation; otherwise, I suspect it will lie unused.
We are one of only two jurisdictions that have made advances and progress on this. I know that others are looking at our work in the field and, if we can make a success of it, others will undoubtedly follow—but it needs leadership at the top to make this useful piece of legislation workable in future and to enhance our credentials as an international trading country.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for moving these amendments from the Commons. He has shown remarkable consistency with the words of his honourable friend Mr Scully in the Commons—I think word for word it is what he said, so that is excellent. I see other members of the committee here; I am only sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is not here to see the final process and see this legislation go forward.
I welcome these amendments, because it means that the legislation will cover the whole United Kingdom, and that the exception power in Clause 5 will operate across the UK. Could the Minister say whether anything is in contemplation under Clause 5 to be excepted in using that power across the UK?
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about a plan for implementation. This is a much more important Bill than it appears at first sight, and we should really speed it on its way in implementation terms.

Lord Holmes of Richmond: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments as set out. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
This is the most important Bill that no one has ever heard of. It demonstrates what we can do when we combine the potential of these new technologies with the great good fortune of common law that we have in this country. I particularly support the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Clement-Jones, about the Government’s plan for implementation. Although it is obviously critical that we get Royal Assent to this Bill as soon as possible, that is really where the work begins. As my noble friend the Minister knows, the Bill is rightly permissive in nature; it cannot be that, having done all the work through both Houses of Parliament, the Bill is then just left on the shelf.  There needs to be an active plan for implementation, communicating to all the sectors and all the organisations, institutions and brilliant businesses in this space to seize the opportunity that comes from electronic trade documents. Does my noble friend the Minister agree— and will he fill out some more detail on what that implementation plan is?

Viscount Camrose: I thank all three noble Lords who have commented. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others have rightly raised the issue of how we implement the provision, and I could not agree more strongly that the prospect of such a brilliant and transformational Bill gathering dust on a shelf is rather depressing; it would be a great waste.
Industry is very keen to implement this itself, but it is on us to track how that is going and ensure that it does. On how exactly industry goes about it, I would like to write to noble Lords to explain that, because I very much recognise the importance of the question.
With respect to any actions envisaged in Clause 5, nothing is currently envisaged.
Motion agreed.

Online Safety Bill
 - Report (5th Day)

Relevant documents: 28th and 38th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 15th Report from the Constitution Committee. Scottish and Welsh Legislative Consent granted.

Amendment 236C

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
236C: After Clause 194, insert the following new Clause—“Power to impose duty about alternative dispute resolution procedure(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Act for or in connection with the imposition on providers of Category 1 services of an ADR duty.(2) An “ADR duty”—(a) is a duty requiring providers of Category 1 services to arrange for and engage in an alternative dispute resolution procedure in specified circumstances for the resolution of disputes about their handling of relevant complaints, and(b) may include a duty requiring such providers to meet the costs incurred by any other person in using a dispute resolution procedure which is so arranged.(3) Complaints are “relevant” for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) if they—(a) relate to a Category 1 service,(b) are of a specified kind, and(c) are made by persons of a specified kind.(4) Regulations under this section may not be made before the publication of a statement by the Secretary of State responding to OFCOM’s report under section (OFCOM’s report about reporting and complaints procedures)(report about reporting and complaints procedures in use by providers of Part 3 services: see subsection (10) of that section).  (5) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) OFCOM,(b) the Information Commissioner, and(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(6) If the power conferred by subsection (1) is exercised, the first regulations made under the power must—(a) require the use of a dispute resolution procedure which is impartial, and(b) prohibit the use of a dispute resolution procedure which restricts or excludes the availability of civil proceedings.(7) Provision made by regulations under this section may have the effect that the duties set out in any or all of sections 17, 18 and 19 which apply in relation to duties imposed by other provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 3 are also to apply in relation to the ADR duty, and accordingly the regulations may amend—(a) section 17(6),(b) the definition of “safety measures and policies” in section 18(8), or(c) the definition of “relevant duties” in section 19(10).(8) The provisions of this Act that may be amended by the regulations in connection with the imposition of the ADR duty include, but are not limited to, the following provisions (in addition to those mentioned in subsection (7))—(a) section 6(5),(b) section 94(12)(a), and(c) section 120(2).(9) If the power conferred by subsection (1) is exercised, the first regulations made under the power must require OFCOM to—(a) produce and publish guidance for providers of Category 1 services to assist them in complying with the ADR duty, and(b) consult the Secretary of State, the Information Commissioner and such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate before producing the guidance.(10) Section 184(1) applies for the purposes of the references to Category 1 services in this section.(11) In this section “specified” means specified in regulations under this section.(12) For the meaning of “Category 1 service”, see section 86 (register of categories of services).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations amending this Bill so as to impose a new duty on providers of Category 1 services to arrange for and engage in an out of court, impartial dispute resolution procedure. The regulations may not be made until the Secretary of State has responded to OFCOM’s report about content reporting and complaints procedures under the new clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 147 in my name.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, the government amendments in this group relate to content reporting and complaints procedures. The Bill’s existing duties on each of these topics are a major step forward and will provide users with effective methods of redress. There will now be an enforceable duty on Part 3 services to offer accessible, transparent and easy-to-use complaints procedures. This is an important and significant change from which users and others will benefit directly.
Furthermore, Part 3 services complaints procedures will be required to provide for appropriate action to be taken in response to complaints. The duties here will fundamentally alter how complaints systems are operated by services, and providers will have to make sure that their systems are up to scratch. If services do not comply with their duties, they will face strong enforcement measures.
However, we have listened to concerns raised by your Lordships and others, and share the desire to ensure that complaints are handled effectively. That is why we have tabled Amendments 272AA and 274AA, to ensure that the Bill’s provisions in this area are the subject of a report to be published by Ofcom within two years of commencement.
Amendment 272AA places a requirement on Ofcom to undertake a report about Part 3 services reporting and complaints procedures. The report will assess the measures taken or in use by providers of Part 3 services to enable users and others to report content and make complaints. In assessing the content reporting and complaints measures in place, the report must take into account users’ and others’ experiences of those procedures—including how easy to use and clear they are for reporting content and making complaints, and whether providers are taking appropriate and timely action in response.
In this report, Ofcom must provide advice to the Secretary of State about whether she should use her power set out in Amendment 236C to make regulations imposing an alternative dispute resolution duty on category 1 services. Ofcom may also make wider recommendations about how the complaints and user redress provisions can be strengthened, and how users’ experiences with regard to complaints can be improved more broadly. Amendment 274AA is a consequential amendment ensuring that the usual confidentiality provisions apply to matters contained in that report.
These changes will ensure that the effectiveness of the Bill’s content reporting and complaints provisions can be thoroughly assessed by Ofcom two years after the commencement of the provision, providing time for the relevant reporting and complaints procedures to bed in.
Amendment 236C then provides that the Secretary of State will have a power to make regulations to amend the Act in order to impose an alternative dispute resolution duty on providers of category 1 services. This power can be used after the Secretary of State has published a statement in response to Ofcom’s report. This enables the Secretary of State to impose via regulations a duty on the providers of category 1 services to arrange for and engage in an impartial, out-of-court alternative dispute resolution procedure in respect of complaints. This means that, if the Bill’s existing user redress provisions are found to be insufficient, this requirement can quickly be imposed to strengthen the Bill.
This responds directly to concerns which noble Lords raised about cases where users or parents may feel that they have nowhere to turn if they are dissatisfied with a service’s response to their complaint. We believe that the existing provisions will remedy this, but, if they do not, these new requirements will ensure that  there is an impartial, alternative dispute resolution procedure which will work towards the effective resolution of the complaint between the service and the complainant.
At the same time, it will avoid creating a single ombudsman, person or body which may be overwhelmed either through the volume of complaints from multiple services or by the complexity of applying such disparate services’ varying terms of service. Instead, if required, this power will put the onus on the provider to arrange for and engage in an impartial dispute resolution procedure.
Amendment 237D requires that, if regulations are made requiring category 1 services to offer an alternative dispute resolution procedure, such regulation must be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This ensures that Parliament will continue to have oversight of this process.
I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Bill not only requires services to provide users and others with effective forms of redress but that these further amendments will ensure that the Bill’s provisions in this area will be thoroughly reviewed and that action can be taken quickly if it is needed. I beg to move.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I am grateful to hear what the Minister has just announced. The scheme that was originally prefigured in the pre-legislative scrutiny report has now got some chance of being delivered. I think the process and procedures are quite appropriate; it does need review and thought. There needs to be account taken of practice on the ground, how people have found the new system is working, and whether or not there are gaps that can be filled this way. I give my full support to the proposal, and I am very glad to see it.
Having got to the Dispatch Box early, I will just appeal to our small but very important group. We are on the last day on Report. We are reaching a number of issues where lots of debate has taken place in Committee. I think it would be quite a nice surprise for us all if we were to get through this quickly. The only way to do that is by restricting our contributions.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 272AA and 274AA, only because at the previous stage of the Bill I tabled amendments related to the reporting of illegal content and fraudulent advertisements, both in reporting, and complaints and transparency. I have not re-tabled them here, but I have had conversations with my noble friend the Minister. It is still unclear to those in the House and outside why the provisions relating to that type of reporting would not apply to fraudulent advertisements, particularly given that the more information that can be filed about those types of scams and fraudulent advertisements, the easier it would be for the platforms to gather information, and help users and others to start to crack down on that. I wonder if, when he sums up, my noble friend could say something about the reporting provisions relating to fraudulent advertisements generally, and in particular around general reporting and reporting relating to complaints by users.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, I am mindful of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to be brief. I add a note of welcome to the mechanism that has been set out.
In this legislation, we are initiating a fundamental change to the way in which category 1 providers will run their reporting systems, in that prior to this they have not had any external oversight. Ofcom’s intervention will be material, given that online service providers will have to explain to Ofcom what they are doing and why.
We should note that we are also asking providers to do some novel prioritisation. The critical thing with all these reporting systems is that they operate at such huge volumes. I will not labour the points, but if noble Lords are interested they can look at the Meta and YouTube transparency reports, where it is explained that they are actioning tens of millions of pieces of content each month, on the basis of hundreds of millions of reports. If you get even 1% of 10 million reports wrong, that is 100,000 errors. We should have in mind the scale we are operating at. Ofcom will not be able to look at each one of those, but I think it will be able to produce a valuable system and make sure that quality control is improved across those systems, working with the providers. Having additional powers to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism where one does not exist and would prove to be useful is helpful. However, the slow and steady approach of seeing what will happen with those systems under Ofcom supervision before jumping into the next stage is right.
I also note that we are asking platforms to do some prioritisation in the rest of the Online Safety Bill. For example, we are saying that we wish journalistic and politician content to be treated differently from ordinary user content. All of those systems need to be bedded in, so it makes sense to do it at a reasonable pace.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who cannot be here today, was also very interested in this area and wanted to make sure we made the point that the fact there is a reasonable timescale for the review does not mean that we should take our foot off the pedal now for our expectations for category 1 service providers. I think I heard that from the Minister, but it would be helpful for him to repeat it. We will be asking Ofcom to keep the pressure on to get these systems right now, and not just wait until it has done the report and then seek improvements at that stage. With that—having been about as brief as I can be— I will sit down.

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: My Lords, I promise I will be brief. I, too, welcome what the Minister has said and the amendments that the Government have proposed. This is the full package which we have been seeking in a number of areas, so I am very pleased to see it. My noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, are not in their places, but I know I speak for both of them in wanting to register that, although the thoughtful and slow-and-steady approach has some benefits, there also some real costs to it. The UK Safer Internet Centre estimates that there will be some 340,000 individuals in the UK  who will have no recourse for action if the platforms complaints mechanism does not work for them in the next two years. That is quite a large number of people, so I have one very simple question for the Minister: if I have exhausted the complaints procedure with an existing platform in the next two years, where do I go? I cannot go to Ofcom. My noble friend Lord Grade was very clear in front of the committee I sit on that it is not Ofcom’s job. Where do I go if I have a complaint that I cannot get resolved in the next two years?

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Trust Alliance Group, which operates the energy and communications ombudsman schemes, so I have a particular interest in the operation of these ADR schemes. I thank the Minister for the flexibility that he has shown in the provision about the report by Ofcom and in having backstop powers for the Secretary of State to introduce such a scheme.
Of course, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the UK Safer Internet Centre are very disappointed that this is not going to come into effect immediately, but there are advantages in not setting out the scheme at this very early point before we know what some of the issues arising are. I believe that Ofcom will definitely want to institute such a scheme, but it may be that, in the initial stages, working out the exact architecture is going to be necessary. Of course, I would have preferred to have a mandated scheme, in the sense that the report will look not at the “whether” but the “how”, but I believe that at the end of the day it will absolutely obvious that there needs to be such an ADR scheme in order to provide the kind of redress the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was talking about.
I also agree with noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that the kinds of complaints that this would cover should include fraudulent adverts. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that both noble Baronesses asked. As my noble friend said, will he reassure us that the department and Ofcom will not take their foot off the pedal, whatever the Bill may say?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am grateful to noble Lords for their warm support and for heeding the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on brevity. We must finish our Report today. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, is right to mention my noble friend Lady Newlove, who I have spoken to about this issue, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who has raised some questions here.
Alongside the strong duties on services to offer content reporting and complaints procedures, our amendments will ensure that the effectiveness of these provisions can be reviewed after they have had sufficient time to bed in. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked about timing in more detail. Ofcom must publish the report within the two-year period beginning on the day on which the provision comes into force. That will allow time for the regime to bed in before the report takes place, ensuring that its conclusions are informed by how the procedures work in practice. If necessary, our amendments will allow the Secretary of State to impose via regulations a duty on the providers of  category 1 services to arrange for and engage in an impartial, out-of-court alternative dispute resolution procedure, providing the further strengthening which I outlined in opening.
I can reassure my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes that reporting mechanisms to facilitate providers’ removal of fraudulent advertisements are exactly the kinds of issues that Ofcom’s codes of practice will cover, subject to consultation and due process. As companies have duties to remove fraudulent advertising once they are alerted to it, we expect platforms will need the necessary systems and processes in place to enable users to report fraudulent adverts so that providers can remove them.
My noble friend Lady Harding asked the question which was posed a lot in Committee about where one goes if all avenues are exhausted. We have added further avenues for people to seek redress if they do not get it but, as I said in Committee, the changes that we are bringing in through this Bill will mark a significant change for people. Rather than focusing on the even-further-diminished possibility of their not having their complaints adequately addressed through the additional amendments we are bringing today, I hope she will see that the provisions in the Bill and in these amendments as bringing in the change we all want to see to improve users’ safety online.
Amendment 236C agreed.

Amendment 237

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
237: After Clause 195, insert the following new Clause—“Powers to amend sections (“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”) and (“Priority content that is harmful to children”)(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend—(a) section (“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”) (primary priority content that is harmful to children);(b) section (“Priority content that is harmful to children”) (priority content that is harmful to children).But the power to add a kind of content is limited by subsections (2) to (4).(2) A kind of content may be added to section (“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”) only if the Secretary of State considers that, in relation to Part 3 services—(a) there is a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children presented by content of that kind that is regulated user- generated content or search content, and(b) it is appropriate for the duties set out in sections 11(3)(a) and 25(3)(a) (duty in relation to children of all ages) to apply in relation to content of that kind.(3) A kind of content may be added to section (“Priority content that is harmful to children”) only if the Secretary of State considers that, in relation to Part 3 services, there is a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children presented by content of that kind that is regulated user-generated content or search content.(4) A kind of content may not be added to section (“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”) or (“Priority content that is harmful to children”) if the risk of harm presented by content of that kind flows from—(a) the content’s potential financial impact,  (b) the safety or quality of goods featured in the content, or(c) the way in which a service featured in the content may be performed (for example, in the case of the performance of a service by a person not qualified to perform it).(5) The Secretary of State must consult OFCOM before making regulations under this section.(6) In this section references to children are to children in the United Kingdom.(7) In this section—“regulated user-generated content” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 49);“search content” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 51).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment gives power for the Secretary of State to make regulations changing the kinds of content that count as primary priority content and priority content harmful to children, subject to certain constraints set out in the Clause.
Amendment 237 agreed.
Amendment 237ZA not moved.

  
Clause 200: Regulations: general

Amendment 237A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
237A: Clause 200, page 168, line 5, after “State” insert “or OFCOM”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment has the effect that regulations made by OFCOM under the Bill must be made by statutory instrument.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, Amendments 238A and 238D seek to change the parliamentary process for laying—oh, I am skipping ahead with final day of Report enthusiasm.
As noble Lords know, companies will fund the costs of Ofcom’s online safety functions through annual fees. This means that the regime which the Bill ushers in will be cost neutral to the taxpayer. Once the fee regime is operational, regulated providers with revenue at or above a set threshold will be required to notify Ofcom and to pay a proportionate fee. Ofcom will calculate fees with reference to the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has made two recommendations relating to the fee regime which we have accepted, and the amendments we are discussing in this group reflect this. In addition, we are making an additional change to definitions to ensure that Ofcom can collect proportionate fees.
A number of the amendments in my name relate to qualifying worldwide revenue. Presently, the Bill outlines that this should be defined in a published statement laid before Parliament. Your Lordships’ committee advised that it should be defined through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. We have agreed with this and are proposing changes to Clause 76 so that Ofcom can make provisions about qualifying  worldwide revenue by regulations which, as per the committee’s recommendations, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Secondly, the committee recommended that we change the method by which the revenue threshold is defined. Presently, as set out in the Bill, it is set by the Secretary of State in a published statement laid before Parliament. The committee recommended that the threshold be set through regulations subject to the negative procedure and we are amending Clause 77 to make the recommended change.
Other amendments seek to make a further change to enable Ofcom to collect proportionate fees from providers. A provider of a regulated service the qualifying worldwide revenue of which is equal to, or greater than, the financial threshold will be required to notify Ofcom and pay an annual fee, calculated by reference to its qualifying worldwide revenue. Currently, this means that that fee calculation can be based only on the revenue of the regulated provider. The structure of some technology companies, however, means that how they accrue revenue is not always straightforward. The entity which meets the definition of a provider may therefore not be the entity which generates revenue referable to the regulated service.
Regulations to be made by Ofcom about the qualifying worldwide revenue will therefore be able to provide that the revenue accruing to certain entities in the same group as a provider of a regulated service can be taken into account for the purposes of determining qualifying worldwide revenue. This will enable Ofcom, when making such regulations, to make provisions, if necessary, to account for instances where a provider has a complex group structure; for example, where the regulated provider might accrue only a portion of the revenue referrable to the regulated service, the rest of which might be accrued by other entities in the group’s structure. These amendments to Clause 76 address these issues by allowing Ofcom to make regulations which provide that the revenue from certain other entities within the provider’s group structure can be taken into account. I beg to move.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, we have not talked much about fees in our consideration of the Bill, and I will not talk much about them today, but there are some important questions. We should not skip too lightly over the fact that we will be levying revenues from online providers. That might have a significant impact on the markets. I have some specific questions about this proposed worldwide revenue method but I welcome these amendments and that we will now be getting a better procedure. This will also allow the Minister to say, “All these detailed points can be addressed when these instruments come before Parliament”. That is a good development. However, there are three questions that are worth putting on the record now so that we have time to think about them.
First, what consideration will be given to the impact on services that do not follow a classic revenue model but instead rely on donations and other sorts of support? I know that we will come back to this question in a later group but there are some very large internet service providers that are not the classic advertising-funded  model, instead relying on foundations and other things. They will have significant questions about what we would judge their qualifying worldwide revenue to be, given that they operate to these very different models.
The second question concerns the impact on services that may have a very large footprint outside the UK, and significant worldwide revenues, but which do very little business within the UK. The amendment that the Minister has tabled about group revenues is also relevant here. You can imagine an entity which may be part of a very large worldwide group making very significant revenues around the world. It has a relatively small subsidiary that is offering a service in the UK, with relatively low revenues. There are some important questions there around the potential impact of the fees on decision-making within that group. We have discussed how we do not want to end up with less choice for consumers of services in the UK. There is an interesting question there as to whether getting the fee level wrong might lead to worldwide entities saying, “If you’re going to ask me to pay a fee based on my qualifying worldwide revenue, the UK market is just not worth it”. That may particularly true if, for example, the European Union and other markets are also levying a fee. You can see a rational business choice of, “We’re happy to pay the fee to the EU but not to Ofcom if it is levied at a rate that is disproportionate to the business that we do here”.
The third and very topical question is about the Government’s thinking about services with declining revenues but whose safety needs are not reducing and may even be increasing. I hope as I say this that people have Twitter in mind, which has very publicly told us that its revenue is going down significantly. It has also very publicly fired most of its trust and safety staff. You can imagine a model within which, because its revenue is declining, it is paying less to Ofcom precisely when Ofcom needs to do more supervision of it.
I hope that we can get some clarity around the Government’s intentions in these circumstances. I have referenced three areas where the worldwide qualifying revenue calculation may go a little awry. The first is where the revenue is not classic commercial income but comes from other sources. The second is where the footprint in the UK is very small but it is otherwise a large global company which we might worry will withdraw from the market. The third, and perhaps most important, is what the Government’s intention is where a company’s revenue is declining and it is managing its platform less well and its Ofcom needs increase, and what we would expect to happen to the fee level in those circumstances.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, there is very little to add to that. These are important questions. I simply was struck by the thought that the amount of work, effort and thought that has gone into this should not be kept within this Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought of offering his services to His Majesty’s Treasury, which has difficulty in raising tax from these companies. It would be nice to see that problem resolved.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am looking forward to returning to arts and heritage; I will leave that to my noble friend Lady Penn.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked some good questions. He is right: the provisions and the parliamentary scrutiny allow for the flexibility for all these things to be looked at and scrutinised in the way that he set out. I stress that the fee regime is designed to be fair to industry; that is central to the approach we have taken. The Bill stipulates that Ofcom must charge only proportionate and justifiable fees to industry. The provisions that Ofcom can make via regulation about the qualifying worldwide revenue aim to ensure that fees are truly representative of the revenue relating to the regulated service and that they will encourage financial transparency. They also aim to aid companies with complex structures which would otherwise struggle to segregate revenues attributable to the provider and its connected entities.
The revenue of the group undertaking can be considered in scope of a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue if the entity was a member of the provider’s group during any part of the qualifying period and the entity receives during the qualifying period any amount referrable to a regulated service. The regulations provide Ofcom with a degree of flexibility as to whether or not to make such provisions, because Ofcom will aim to keep the qualifying worldwide revenue simple.
I am grateful for noble Lords’ support for the amendments and believe that they will help Ofcom and the Government to structure a fair and transparent fee regime which charges proportionate fees to fund the cost of the regulatory regime that the Bill brings in.
Amendment 237A agreed.

Amendment 237B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
237B: Clause 200, page 168, line 6, at end insert—“(3A) The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies in relation to OFCOM’s powers to make regulations under this Act as if OFCOM were a Minister of the Crown.(3B) The Documentary Evidence Act 1868 (proof of orders and regulations etc) has effect as if—(a) OFCOM were included in the first column of the Schedule to that Act;(b) OFCOM and persons authorised to act on their behalf were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes technical provision in relation to regulations made by OFCOM under the Bill.
Amendment 237B agreed.

  
Clause 201: Parliamentary procedure for regulations

Amendments 237C to 237DA

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
237C: Clause 201, page 168, line 11, at end insert—“(aa) regulations under section (“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”)(1),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations made by OFCOM under subsection (1) of the new Clause 76 proposed in my name regarding “qualifying worldwide revenue” etc are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.
237D: Clause 201, page 168, line 14, at end insert—“(da) regulations under section (Power to regulate app stores)(1),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations made under the new Clause proposed in my name after Clause 194 are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.
237DA: Clause 201, page 168, line 14, at end insert—“(da) regulations under section (Power to impose duty about alternative dispute resolution procedure)(1),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations made under the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 194, concerning regulations to impose a duty on providers of Category 1 services about using an alternative dispute resolution procedure, are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.
Amendments 237C to 237DA agreed.
Amendment 237DB not moved.

Amendments 237E and 238

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
237E: Clause 201, page 168, line 23, at end insert—“(m) regulations under paragraph 5(9) of Schedule 13,”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations made by OFCOM under paragraph 5(9) of Schedule 13 regarding “qualifying worldwide revenue” etc for the purposes of that paragraph are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.
238: Clause 201, page 168, line 26, leave out “54(2) or (3)” and insert “(Powers to amend sections (“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”) and (“Priority content that is harmful to children”))(1)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that regulations made under the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 195 in my name are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in cases of urgency.
Amendments 237E and 238 agreed.

Amendment 238A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
238A: Clause 201, page 169, line 3, at end insert—“(7A) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 (whether alone or with regulations under paragraph 1(2) or (3) of that Schedule) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(7B) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that the first regulations made under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 (regulations specifying Category 1 threshold conditions) are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, as I was eagerly anticipating, government Amendments 238A and 238D seek to change the parliamentary process for laying the first regulations specifying the category  1 threshold conditions from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I am pleased to bring forward this change in response to the recommendation of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The change will ensure that there are adequate levels of parliamentary scrutiny of the first regulations specifying the category 1 threshold conditions. This is appropriate given that the categorisation of category 1 services will lead to the most substantial duties on the largest and most influential services. As noble Lords are aware, these include the duties on user empowerment, user identity verification, journalistic and news publisher content, content of democratic importance, and fraudulent advertising.
Category 2A services will have only additional transparency and fraudulent advertising duties, and category 2B services will be subject only to additional transparency reporting duties. The burden of these duties is significantly less than the additional category 1 duties, and we have therefore retained the use of the negative resolution procedure for these regulations, as they require less parliamentary scrutiny.
Future changes to the category 1 threshold conditions will also use the negative procedure. This will ensure that the regime remains agile in responding to change, which I know was of particular concern to noble Lords when we debated the categorisation group in Committee. Keeping the negative procedure for such subsequent uses will avoid the risk of future changes being subject to delays because of parliamentary scheduling. I beg to move.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 245. I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister, and also the Minister on leave, for the conversations that I have had with them about this amendment and related issues. As we have already heard, the platform categorisation is extremely important. So far, much of it is unknown, including which sites are actually going to be in which categories. For example, we have not yet seen any proposed secondary regulations. As my noble friend has just outlined, special duties apply, especially for those sites within category 1—user empowerment in particular, but also other duties relating to content and fraudulent advertisements.
Clause 85 and Schedule 11 set out the thresholds for determining which sites will be in category 1, category 2A or category 2B. I am very mindful of the exhortation of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about being brief, but it is amazing how much you have to say about one word to explain this amendment. This amendment proposes to change an “and” to an “or” in relation to determining which sites would fall within category 1. It would move from a test of size “and” functionality to a test of size “or” functionality. This would give Ofcom more flexibility to decide which platforms really need category 1 designation. Category 1 should not be decided just on size; it should also be possible to determine it on the basis of functionality.
Functionality is defined in the Bill in Clause 208. We will get to those amendments shortly, but there is no doubt from what the Government have already conceded, or agreed with those of us who have been  campaigning passionately on the Bill for a number of years, that functionality can make a platform harmful. It is perfectly possible to have small platforms that both carry highly harmful content and themselves become harmful in the way that they are designed. We have heard many examples and I will not detain the House with them, but I draw attention to two particular sites which capture how broad this is. The perpetrators of offline hate crimes are often linked to these small platforms. For example, the perpetrator of the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue mass shooting had an online presence on the right-wing extremist social network Gab. In the UK, Jake Davison, the self-proclaimed incel who killed five people in Plymouth in 2021, frequented smaller incel forums after he was banned from Reddit in the days leading up to the mass shooting.
I also want to share with noble Lords an email that I received just this week from a family who had been to see their Member of Parliament, Matt Rodda MP, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who I know is very regretful that she cannot be here today. I thank Victoria and Jean Eustace for sharing the story of their sister and daughter. Victoria wrote: “I am writing to you regarding the Online Safety Bill, as my family and I are concerned it will not sufficiently protect vulnerable adults from harm. My sister, Zoe Lyalle, killed herself on 26 May 2020, having been pointed towards a method using an online forum called Sanctioned Suicide. Zoe was 18 years old at the time of her death and as such technically an adult, but she was autistic, so she was emotionally less mature than many 18 year- olds. She found it difficult to critically analyse written content”. She says that “The forum in question is not large and states on its face that it does not encourage suicide, although its content does just that”. The next part I was even more shocked about: “Since Zoe’s death, we have accessed her email account. The forum continues to email Zoe, providing her with updates on content she may have missed while away from the site, as well as requesting donations. One recent email included a link to a thread on the forum containing tips on how best to use the precise method that Zoe had employed”.
In her note to me, the Minister on leave said that she wanted to catch some of the platforms we are talking about with outsized influence. In my reply, I said that those sites on which people are encouraged to take their own lives or become radicalised and therefore take the harms they are seeing online into the real world undoubtedly exercise influence and should be tackled.
It is also perfectly possible for us to have large but safe platforms. I know that my noble friend Lord Moylan may want to discuss this in relation to sites that he has talked about already on this Bill. The risk of the current drafting is a flight of users from these large platforms, newly categorised as category 1, to the small, non-category 1 platforms. What if a platform becomes extremely harmful very quickly? How will it be recategorised speedily but fairly and involving parliamentary oversight?
The Government have run a variety of arguments as to why the “and” in the Bill should not become an “or”. They say that it creates legal uncertainty. Every Bill creates legal uncertainty; that is why we have an  army of extremely highly paid lawyers, not just in this country but around the world. They say that what we are talking about is broader than illegal content or content related to children’s safety, but they have already accepted an earlier amendment on safety by design and, in subsections (10) to (12) of Clause 12, that specific extra protections should be available for content related to
“suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury, or … an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder”
or abusive content relating to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment and that:
“Content is within this subsection if it incites hatred against people”.
The Government have already breached some of their own limits on content that is not just illegal or relates to child safety duties. In fact, they have agreed that that content should have enhanced triple-shield protection.
The Government have also said that they want to avoid burdens on small but low-harm platforms. I agree with that, but with an “or” it would be perfectly possible for Ofcom to decide by looking at size or functionality and to exclude those smaller platforms that do not present the harm we all care about. The Minister may also offer me a review of categorisation; however, it is a review of the tiers of categorisation and not the sites within the categories, which I think many of us will have views on over the years.
I come to what we should do on this final day of Report. I am very thankful to those who have had many conversations on this, but there is a fundamental difference of opinion in this House on these matters. We will talk about functionality shortly and I am mindful of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee’s recommendation that this legislation should adopt
“a more nuanced approach, based not just on size and high-level functionality, but factors such as risk, reach, user base, safety performance, and business model”.
There should be other factors. Ofcom should have the ability to decide whether it takes one factor or another, and not have a series of all the thresholds to be passed, to give it the maximum flexibility. I will listen very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords say, but at this moment I intend to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 245. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, has explained the nub of the problem we are facing—that size and functionality are quite separate. You can have large sites that perform a major social function and are extremely useful across society. Counter to that, you can have a small site focused on being very harmful to a small group of people. The problem is that, without providing the flexibility to Ofcom to determine how the risk assessment should be conducted, the Bill would lock it into leaving these small, very harmful platforms able to pursue their potentially ever-increasingly harmful activities almost out of sight. It does nothing to make sure that their risk assessments are appropriate.
We have already discussed the need to future-proof the Bill and I have tried to lay some amendments to that effect which the Government have not accepted.  I hope that they will accept this amendment because this one change of wording would allow the flexibility that could provide a degree of future-proofing that is not provided otherwise within the Bill.
The amendment does not remove the sites completely. Those sites promoting suicide, serious self-harm and other activities across society will still continue, but because they will potentially be able to be captured and required to look at their risk assessment, their activities will perhaps at least be curtailed and, to a certain extent, regulated. It seems that the amendment simply provides a level playing field in the core issue of safety, which has been a theme we have addressed right through the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment as it is; one change of wording could allow Ofcom to do its job so much better. If he does not, I hope the amendment will be strongly supported by all sides of the House.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Coates, and her amendment, which tries to help parliamentary counsel draft better regulations later on. I am really struggling to see why the Government want to resist something that will make their life easier if they are going to do what we want them to do, which is to catch those high-risk services—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out—but also, as we have discussed in Committee and on Report, exclude the low-risk services that have been named, such as Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap.
I asked the Minister on Report how that might happen, and he confirmed that such services are not automatically exempt from the user-to-user services regulations, but he also confirmed that they might be under the subsequent regulations drafted under Schedule 11. That is precisely why we are coming back to this today; we want to make sure that they can be exempt under the regulations drafted under Schedule 11. The test should be: would that be easier under the amended version proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, or under the original version? I think it would be easier under the amended version. If the political intent is there to exclude the kind of services that I have talked about—the low-risk services—and I think it should be, because Ofcom should not be wasting time, in effect, supervising services that do not present a risk and, not just that, creating a supervisory model that may end up driving those services out of the UK market because they cannot legally say that they will make the kind of commitments Ofcom would expect them to make, having two different thresholds, size and functionality, gives the draftspeople the widest possible choice. By saying “or”, we are not saying they cannot set a condition that is “and” or excludes “and”, but “and” does exclude “or”, if I can put it that way. They can come back with a schedule that says, “You must be of this size and have this kind of functionality”, or they could say “this functionality on its own”—to the point made by the two noble Baronesses about some sites. They might say, “Look, there is functionality which is always so high-risk that we do not care what size you are; if you’ve got this functionality, you’re always going to be in”. Again, the rules as drafted at the moment would not allow them to do that; they would have to say, “You need to have this functionality and be of  this size. Oh, whoops, by saying that you have to be of this size, we’ve now accidentally caught somebody else who we did not intend to catch”.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but it seems entirely sensible that we have the widest possible choice. When we come to consider this categorisation under Schedule 11 later on, the draftspeople should be able to say either “You must be this size and have this functionality” or “If you’ve got this functionality, you’re always in” or “If you’re of this size, you’re always in”, and have the widest possible menu of choices. That will achieve the twin objectives which I think everyone who has taken part in the debate wants: the inclusion of high-risk services, no matter their size, and the exclusion of low-risk services, no matter their size—if they are genuinely low risk. That is particularly in respect of the services we have discussed and which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has been a very strong advocate for. In trying to do good, we should not end up inadvertently shutting down important information services that people in this country rely on. Frankly, people would not understand it if we said, “In the name of online safety, we’ve now made it so that you cannot access an online encyclopaedia or a map”.
It is going to be much harder for the draftspeople to draft categorisation under Schedule 11, as it is currently worded, that has the effect of being able to exclude low-risk services. The risk of their inadvertently including them and causing that problem is that much higher. The noble Baroness is giving us a way out and I hope the Minister will stand up and grab the lifeline. I suspect he will not.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 238A, which I think was in response to the DPRRC report. The sentiment around the House is absolutely clear about the noble Baroness’s Amendment 245. Indeed, she made the case conclusively for the risk basis of categorisation. She highlighted Zoe’s experience and I struggle to understand why the Secretary of State is resisting the argument. She knocked down the nine pins of legal uncertainty, and how it was broader than children and illegal by reference to Clause 12. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, added to the knocking down of those nine pins.
Smaller social media platforms will, on the current basis of the Bill, fall outside category 1. The Royal College of Psychiatrists made it pretty clear that the smaller platforms might be less well moderated and more permissive of dangerous content. It is particularly concerned about the sharing of information about methods of suicide or dangerous eating disorder content. Those are very good examples that it has put forward.
I return to the scrutiny committee again. It said that
“a more nuanced approach, based not just on size and high-level functionality, but factors such as risk, reach, user base, safety performance, and business model”
should be adopted. It seems that many small, high-harm services will be excluded unless we go forward on the basis set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. The kind of breadcrumbing we have talked about during the passage of the Bill and, on the other hand, sites such as Wikipedia, as mentioned by noble friend, will be swept into the net despite being low risk.
I have read the letter from the Secretary of State which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, kindly circulated. I cannot see any argument in it why Amendment 245 should not proceed. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, on these Benches we will support her.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, I have good news and bad news for the Minister. The good news is that we have no problem with his amendments. The bad news, for him, is that we strongly support Amendment 245 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Coates, which, as others have said, we think is a no-brainer.
The beauty of the simple amendment has been demonstrated; it just changes the single word “and” to “or”. It is of course right to give Ofcom leeway—or flexibility, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, described it—in the categorisation and to bring providers into the safety regime. What the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the smaller platforms, the breadcrumbing relating to the Jake Davison case and the functionality around bombarding Zoe Lyalle with those emails told the story that we needed to hear.
As it stands, the Bill requires Ofcom to always be mindful of size. We need to be more nuanced. From listening to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam—with his, as ever, more detailed analysis of how things work in practice—my concern is that in the end, if it is all about size, Ofcom will end up having to have a much larger number in scope on the categorisation of size in order to cover all the platforms that it is worried about. If we could give flexibility around size or functionality, that would make the job considerably easier.
We on this side think categorisation should happen with a proportionate, risk-based approach. We think the flexibility should be there, the Minister is reasonable—come on, what’s not to like?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I shall explain why the simple change of one word is not as simple as it may at first seem. My noble friend’s Amendment 245 seeks to amend the rule that a service must meet both a number-of-users threshold and a functionality threshold to be designated as category 1 or 2B. It would instead allow the Secretary of State by regulation to require a service to have to meet only one or other of the two requirements. That would mean that smaller user-to-user services could be so categorised by meeting only a functionality threshold.
In practical terms, that would open up the possibility of a future Secretary of State setting only a threshold condition about the number of users, or alternatively about functionality, in isolation. That would create the risk that services with a high number of users but limited functionality would be caught in scope of category 1. That could be of particular concern to large websites that operate with limited functionality for public interest reasons, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Moylan can think of one that fits that bill. On the other hand, it could capture a vast array of low-risk smaller services merely because they have a specific functionality—for instance, local community fora that have livestreaming capabilities. So we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, but come at it from a different perspective from him.
My noble friend Lady Morgan mentioned the speed of designation. The Bill’s approach to the pace of designation for the category 1 watchlist and register is flexible—deliberately so, to allow Ofcom to act as quickly as is proportionate to each emerging service. Ofcom will have a duty proactively to identify, monitor and evaluate emerging services, which will afford it early visibility when a service is approaching the category 1 threshold. It will therefore be ready to act accordingly to add services to the register should the need arise.
The approach set out in my noble friend’s Amendment 245 would not allow the Secretary of State to designate individual services as category 1 if they met one of the threshold conditions. Services can be designated as category 1 only if they meet all the relevant threshold conditions set out in the regulations made by the Secretary of State. That is the case regardless, whether the regulations set out one condition or a combination of several conditions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suggested that the amendment would assist Ofcom in its work. Ofcom itself has raised concerns that amendments such as this—to introduce greater flexibility—could increase the risk of legal challenges to categorisation. My noble friend Lady Morgan was part of the army of lawyers before she came to Parliament, and I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is one as well. I hope they will heed the words of the regulator; this is not a risk that noble Lords should take lightly.
I will say more clearly that small companies can pose significant harm to users—I have said it before and I am happy to say it again—which is why there is no exemption for small companies. The very sad examples that my noble friend Lady Morgan gave in her speech related to illegal activity. All services, regardless of size, will be required to take action against illegal content, and to protect children if they are likely to be accessed by children. This is a proportionate regime that seeks to protect small but excellent platforms from overbearing regulation. However, I want to be clear that a small platform that is a font of illegal content cannot use the excuse of its size as an excuse for not dealing with it.
Category 1 services are those services that have a major influence over our public discourse online. Again, I want to be clear that designation as a category 1 service is not based only on size. The thresholds for category 1 services will be based on the functionalities of a service as well as the size of the user base. The thresholds can also incorporate other characteristics that the Secretary of State deems relevant, which could include factors such as a service’s business model or its governance. Crucially, Ofcom has been clear that it will prioritise engagement with high-risk or high-impact services, irrespective of their categorisation, to understand their existing safety systems and how they plan to improve them.
Requiring all companies to comply with the full range of category 1 duties would divert these companies’ resources away from the vital task of tackling illegal content and protecting children, but we are clear that the popularity and characteristics of services can change. To that end, the Government have placed a new duty  on Ofcom to identify and publish a list of companies that are close to the category 1 thresholds. That will ensure that Ofcom proactively identifies emerging category 1 companies and is ready to assess and add them to the category 1 register without delay. This tiered approach will be kept under review by both Ofcom and the Government, both as part of the thresholds and as part of the post-legislative review conducted by the Secretary of State.
I am very grateful to noble Lords and Members of another place, as well as groups including the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Samaritans and Kick It Out for their tireless work on this issue. I hope that explains to my noble friend why we cannot support her amendment. I hope that she will not press it, but if she does the rest of these Benches will oppose it and the Government cannot accept adding it to the Bill.
Amendment 238A agreed.

Amendments 238B to 238E

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
238B: Clause 201, page 169, line 6, leave out “74(3)(b)” and insert “(“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”)(2)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations made by OFCOM about supporting evidence to be supplied by providers for the purposes of Part 6 of the Bill (fees) are subject to the negative Parliamentary procedure.
238C: Clause 201, page 169, line 6, at end insert—“(ba) regulations under section 77,”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State specifying the threshold figure for the purposes of Part 6 of the Bill are subject to the negative Parliamentary procedure.
238D: Clause 201, page 169, line 11, leave out “(1),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new subsections (7A) and (7B) into this Clause.
238E: Clause 201, page 169, line 13, at end insert—“(8A) As soon as a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”)(1) or paragraph 5(9) of Schedule 13 (whether alone or with provision under section (“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”)(2)) is ready for laying before Parliament, OFCOM must send the draft to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay the draft before Parliament.(8B) Immediately after making a statutory instrument containing only regulations under section (“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”)(2), OFCOM must send the instrument to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides for the Secretary of State’s involvement in the Parliamentary procedure to which regulations made by OFCOM under this Bill are subject.
Amendments 238B to 238E agreed.

Amendment 239

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: Moved by Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
239: After Clause 201, insert the following new Clause—“Regulations: consultation and impact assessments  (1) This section applies if the Secretary of State seeks to exercise powers under—(a) section 55 (regulations under section 54),(b) section 195 (powers to amend section 35),(c) section 196 (powers to amend or repeal provisions relating to exempt content or services),(d) section 197 (powers to amend Part 2 of Schedule 1),(e) section 198 (powers to amend Schedules 5, 6 and 7), or(f) paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 (regulations specifying threshold conditions for categories of Part 3 services),or where the Secretary of State intends to direct OFCOM under section 39.(2) The Secretary of State may not exercise the powers under the provisions in subsection (1) unless any select committee charged by the relevant House of Parliament with scrutinising such regulations has—(a) completed its consideration of the draft regulations and accompanying impact assessment provided by the Secretary of State; and(b) reported on their deliberation to the relevant House; andthe report of the committee has been debated in that House, or the period of six weeks beginning on the day on which the committee reported has elapsed.”

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State, when seeking to exercise certain powers in the Bill, to provide the relevant Select Committees of both Houses with draft regulations and impact assessments, among other things. I should admit up front that this is a blatant attempt to secure an Online Safety Bill version of what I have called the “Grimstone rule”, established in the international trade Bill a few years ago. Saving his blushes, if the ideas enshrined in the amendment are acceptable to the Government, I hope that the earlier precedent of the “Grimstone rule” would ensure that any arrangements agreed under this amendment would be known in future as the “Parkinson rule”. Flattery will get you many things.
The Bill places a specific consultation requirement on the Government for the fee regime, which we were just talking about, categorisation thresholds, regulations about reports to the NCA, statements of strategic priorities, regulations for super-complaints, and a review of the Act after three years—so a wide range of issues need to be put out for consultation. My context here, which is all-important, is a growing feeling that Parliament’s resources are not being deployed to the full in scrutinising and reviewing the work of the Executive on the one hand and feeding knowledge and experience into future policy on the other. There is continuing concern about the effectiveness of the secondary legislation approval procedures, which this amendment would bear on.
Noble Lords have only to read the reports of the Select Committees of both Houses to realise what a fantastic resource they represent. One has only to have served on a Select Committee to realise what potential also exists there. In an area of rapid technical and policy development, such as the digital world, the need to be more aware of future trends and potential problems is absolutely crucial.
The pre-legislative scrutiny committee report is often quoted here, and it drew attention to this issue as well, recommending
“a Joint Committee of both Houses to oversee digital regulation with five primary functions: scrutinising digital regulators and overseeing the regulatory landscape … scrutinising the Secretary of State’s work into digital regulation; reviewing the codes of practice laid by Ofcom under any legislation relevant to digital regulation … considering any relevant new developments such as the creation of new technologies and the publication of independent research … and helping to generate solutions to ongoing issues in digital regulation”—
a pretty full quiver of issues to be looked at.
I hope that when he responds to this debate, the Minister will agree that ongoing parliamentary scrutiny would be helpful in providing reassurances that the implementation of the regime under the Bill is going as intended, and that the Government would also welcome a system under which Parliament, perhaps through the Select Committees, can contribute to the ways suggested by the Joint Committee. I say “perhaps”, because I accept that it is not appropriate for primary legislation to dictate how, or in what form, Parliament might offer advice in the manner that I have suggested; hence the suggestion embedded in the amendment—which I will not be pressing to a Division—which I call the “Parkinson rule”. Under this, the Minister would agree at the Dispatch Box a series of commitments which will provide an opportunity for enhanced cross-party scrutiny of the online safety regime and an opportunity to survey and report on future developments of interest.
The establishment of the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and its Select Committee means that there is a new dedicated Select Committee in the Commons. The Lords Communications and Digital Committee will continue, I hope, to play a vital role in the scrutiny of the digital world, as it has with the online safety regime to date. While it would be for the respective committees to decide their priorities, I hope the Government would encourage the committees in both Houses to respond to their required consultation processes and to look closely at the draft codes of practice, the uses of regulation-making powers and the powers of direction contained in the Bill ahead of the formal processes in both Houses. Of course, it could be a specialist committee if that is what the Houses decide, but there is an existing arrangement under which this “Parkinson rule” could be embedded. I have discussed the amendment with the Minister and with the Bill team. I look forward to hearing their response to the ideas behind the amendment. I beg to move the “Parkinson rule”.

Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to build a legislative monument. I hope he will take it. The reason I associate myself with it is because the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—who has been sparing in his quoting of the Joint Committee’s report, compared with mine—referred to it and it all made very good sense.
The amendment stumbles only in the opinion of the Government, it seems, on the basis that parliamentary committees need to be decided on by Parliament, rather than the Executive. But this is a very fine distinction, in my view, given that the Government, in a sense, control the legislature and therefore could will the means to do this, even if it was not by legislation. A nod from the Minister would ensure that this would indeed take place. It is very much needed. It was the  Communications and Digital Committee, I think, that introduced the idea that we picked up in the Joint Committee, so it has a very good provenance.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I offer my support to the amendment. I spent some time arguing in the retained EU law Bill for increased parliamentary scrutiny. My various amendments did not succeed but at the end of the day—on the final day of ping-pong—the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave certain assurances based on what is in Schedule 5 to that Act, as it now is, involving scrutiny through committees. So the basic scheme which my noble kinsman has proposed is one which has a certain amount of precedent—although it is not an exact precedent; what might have been the “Callanan rule” is still open to reconstruction as the “Parkinson rule”. I support the amendment in principle.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, have already said, the Communications and Digital Select Committee did indeed recommend a new Joint Committee of both Houses to look specifically at the various different aspects of Ofcom’s implementation of what will be the Online Safety Act and ongoing regulation of digital matters. It is something I still have a lot of sympathy for. However, there has not been much appetite for such a Joint Committee at the other end of the Corridor. I do not necessarily think we should give up on that, and I will come back to that in a moment, but in place of that, I am not keen on what is proposed in Amendment 239, because my fear about how that is laid out is that it introduces something that appears a bit too burdensome and probably introduces too much delay in implementation.
To return to the bigger question, I think that we as parliamentarians need to reflect on our oversight of regulators, to which we are delegating significant new powers and requiring them to adopt a much more principles-based approach to regulation to cope with the fast pace of change in the technological world. We have to reflect on whether our current set-up is adequate for the way in which that is changing. What I have in mind is very much a strategic level of oversight, rather than scrutinising operational decisions, although, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, something specific in terms of implementation of the Bill and other new legislation is an area I would certainly wish to explore further.
The other aspect of this is making sure that our regulators keep pace too, not just with technology, and apply the new powers we give them in a way which meets our original intentions, but with the new political dynamics. Earlier today in your Lordships’ Chamber, there was a Question about how banks are dealing with political issues, and that raises questions about how the FCA is regulating the banking community. We must not forget that the Bill is about regulating content, and that makes it ever more sensitive. We need to keep reminding ourselves about this; it is very new and very different.
As has been acknowledged, there will continue to be a role for the Communications and Digital Select Committee, which I have the great privilege of chairing,  in overseeing Ofcom. My noble friend Lord Grade and Dame Melanie Dawes appeared before us only a week ago. There is a role for the SIT Committee in the Commons; there is also probably some kind of ongoing role for the DCMS Select Committee in the Commons too, I am not sure. In a way, the fractured nature of that oversight makes it all the more critical that we join up a bit more. So I will take it upon myself to give this more thought and speak to the respective chairs of those committees in the other place, but I think that at some point we will need to consider, in some other fora, the way in which we are overseeing the work of regulators.
At some point, I think we will need to address the specific recommendations in the pre-legislative committee’s report, which were very much in line with what my own committee thought was right for the future of digital regulatory oversight, but on this occasion, I will not be supporting the specifics of Amendment 239.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, very briefly, I was pleased to see this, in whatever form it takes, because as we finish off the Bill, one thing that has come up consistently is that some of us have raised problems of potential unintended consequences, such as whether age gating will lead to a huge invasion of the privacy of adults rather than just narrowly protecting children, or whether the powers given to Ofcom will turn it into the most important and powerful regulator in the country, if not in Europe. In a highly complex Bill, is it possible for us to keep our eye on it a bit more than just by whingeing on the sidelines?
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, makes a very important point about the issue in relation to the FCA and banking. Nobody intended that to be the outcome of PEPs, for example, and nobody intended when they suggested encouraging banks to have values such as ESG or EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—that that would lead to ordinary citizens of this country being threatened with having their banking turned off. It is too late to then retrospectively say, “That wasn’t what we ever intended”.
Straightforwardly, from the point of view of scrutiny, I hope we do not say that it will be left up to arm’s-length regulators and do not look at it again. On my consistent concerns about free speech being threatened by this Bill, you can come back and say to me, “Oh, you were wrong, Lady Fox”, but you can say that only if we have a very clear view that Ofcom is not behaving in a way that is going to damage the freedom of expression rights of people in this country.

Lord Kamall: I associate myself with the comments of my noble friend Lady Stowell on this whole issue, and I refer to my register of interests. One question we should be asking, which goes wider than this Bill, is: who regulates the regulators? It is a standard problem in political science and often known as principal agent theory, whereby the principals delegate powers to the agents for many reasons, and you see agency slack, whereby they develop their own powers beyond what was perhaps originally intended. For that reason, I completely associate myself with my noble friend  Lady Stowell’s comments—and not because she chairs a committee on which I sit and I hope to get a favour of more speaking time on that committee. It is simply because, on its merit, we should all be asking who regulates the regulators and making sure that they are accountable. We are asking the same question of the Secretary of State, and quite rightly, the Secretary of State should be accountable for any measures they propose, but we should also be asking it of regulators.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I have always felt rather sorry for the first Viscount Addison, because what we refer to as the Salisbury convention is really the Salisbury-Addison convention. So while I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his flattering speech, I shall insist on calling it the “Parkinson-Stevenson rule”, not least in the hope that that mouthful will encourage people to forget its name more swiftly.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attention to this matter and the useful discussions that we have had. His Amendment 239 would go beyond the existing legislative process for the delegated powers in the Bill by providing for parliamentary committees to be, in effect, inserted into the secondary legislative process. The delegated powers in the Bill are crucial for implementing the regime effectively and for ensuring that it keeps pace with changes in technology. Regulation-making powers are an established part of our legislative practice, and it would not be appropriate to deviate from existing processes.
However, I agree that ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of the regime will be crucial in helping to provide noble Lords and Members in another place with the reassurance that the implementation of the regime is as we intended. As the noble Lord noted, the establishment of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee in another place means that there is a new dedicated committee looking at this important area of public policy. That provides an opportunity for cross-party scrutiny of the online safety regime and broader issues. While it will be, as he said, for respective committees to decide their priorities, we welcome any focus on online safety, and certainly welcome committees in both Houses co-operating effectively on this matter. I am certain that the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House will continue to play a vital role in the scrutiny of the online safety regime.
We would fully expect these committees to look closely at the codes of practice, the uses of regulation-making powers and the powers of direction in a way that allows them to focus on key issues of interest. To support that, I can commit that the Government will do two things. First, where the Bill places a consultation requirement on the Government, we will ensure that the relevant committees have every chance to play a part in that consultation by informing them that the process is open. Secondly, while we do not wish to see the implementation process delayed, we will, where possible, share draft statutory instruments directly with the relevant committees ahead of the formal laying process. These timelines will be on a case-by-case basis, considering what is appropriate and reasonably practical. It will be for the committees to decide how  they wish to engage with the information that we provide, but it will not create an additional approval process to avoid delaying implementation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for her words of caution and wisdom on that point as both chairman of your Lordships’ committee and a former Leader of your Lordships’ House.
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied by what I have set out and will be willing to withdraw his amendment so that our rule might enter into constitutional history more swiftly.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate, despite my injunction that no one was to speak other than those key persons—but it was nice to hear views around the House in support for this proposal, with caution. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was right to be clear that we have to be focused on where we are going on this; there is quite a lot at stake here, and it is a much bigger issue than simply this Bill and these particular issues. Her willingness to take this on in a wider context is most welcome, and I look forward to hearing how that goes. I am also very grateful for the unexpected but very welcome support from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It was nice that she finally agreed to meet on one piece of territory, if we cannot agree on some of the others. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is right to say that we need to pick up the much broader question about who regulates those who regulate us. This is not the answer, but it certainly gets us a step in the direction.
I was grateful to the Minister for suggesting that the “Parkinson rule” could take flight, but I shall continue to call it by a single name—double-barrelled names are not appropriate here. We will see the results of that in the consultation; the things that already have to be consulted about will be offered to the committees, and it is up to them to respond on that, but it is a very good start. The idea that drafts and issues that are being prepared for future regulation will be shown ahead of the formal process is exactly where I wanted to be on this, so I am very grateful for that. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 239 withdrawn.
Amendment 239A not moved.

  
Clause 74: Duty to notify OFCOM

Amendments 239B to 239E

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
239B: Clause 74, page 70, line 3, leave out from “information” to end of line 5 and insert “as required by regulations made by OFCOM under section (“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment omits a reference to regulations made by the Secretary of State. Details about supporting evidence etc to accompany providers’ notifications for the purposes of the fees regime are now to be contained in regulations made by OFCOM (see the new Clause 76 proposed in my name).
239C: Clause 74, page 70, line 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert—“(4) Section (“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc”) confers power on OFCOM to make regulations about the determination of a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue, and the meaning of “qualifying period”, for the purposes of this Part.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is a signpost to the new Clause 76 proposed in my name, conferring power on OFCOM to make regulations about the meaning of qualifying worldwide revenue and qualifying period for the purposes of the fees regime.
239D: Clause 74, page 70, line 11, leave out “threshold figure under section 77 is published” and insert “regulations under section 77 come into force (first threshold figure)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the first amendment of Clause 77 in my name (threshold figure now to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State).
239E: Clause 74, page 70, line 29, leave out subsection (11)Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment omits a provision about procedure for regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3)(b). That is no longer required because details about supporting evidence etc to accompany providers’ notifications for the purposes of the fees regime are now to be contained in regulations made by OFCOM (see the new Clause 76 proposed in my name).
Amendments 239B to 239E agreed.

  
Clause 76: OFCOM’s statement about “qualifying worldwide revenue” etc

Amendment 239F

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
239F: Clause 76, leave out Clause 76 and insert the following new Clause—“Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc(1) For the purposes of this Part, OFCOM may by regulations make provision—(a) about how the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service is to be determined, and(b) defining the “qualifying period” in relation to a charging year.(2) OFCOM may by regulations also make provision specifying or describing evidence, documents or other information that providers must supply to OFCOM for the purposes of section 74 (see subsection (3)(b) of that section), including provision about the way in which providers must supply the evidence, documents or information.(3) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may provide that the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service (P) who is a member of a group during any part of a qualifying period is to include the qualifying worldwide revenue of any entity that—(a) is a group undertaking in relation to P for all or part of that period, and(b) receives or is due to receive, during that period, any amount referable (to any degree) to a regulated service provided by P.(4) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may, in particular—(a) make provision about circumstances in which amounts do, or do not, count as being referable (to any degree) to a regulated service for the purposes of the  determination of the qualifying worldwide revenue of the provider of the service or of an entity that is a group undertaking in relation to the provider;(b) provide for cases or circumstances in which amounts that—(i) are of a kind specified or described in the regulations, and(ii) are not referable to a regulated service,are to be brought into account in determining the qualifying worldwide revenue of the provider of the service or of an entity that is a group undertaking in relation to the provider.(5) Regulations which make provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (3) may include provision that, in the case of an entity that is a group undertaking in relation to a provider for part (not all) of a qualifying period, only amounts relating to the part of the qualifying period for which the entity was a group undertaking may be brought into account in determining the entity’s qualifying worldwide revenue.(6) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may make provision corresponding to paragraph 5(8) of Schedule 13.(7) Before making regulations under subsection (1) OFCOM must consult—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Treasury, and(c) such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate.(8) Before making regulations under subsection (2) OFCOM must consult the Secretary of State.(9) Regulations under this section may make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as OFCOM consider appropriate.(10) In this section—“group” means a parent undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings, reading those terms in accordance with section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006;“group undertaking” has the meaning given by section 1161(5) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment substitutes Clause 76, which is about what is meant by “qualifying worldwide revenue”. The new Clause provides for OFCOM to make regulations about this and related matters for the purposes of the fees regime, and allows the regulations (among other things) to provide that revenue arising to certain entities in the same group as a provider of a regulated service is to be brought into account.
Amendment 239F agreed.

  
Clause 77: Threshold figure

Amendments 239G to 239M

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
239G: Clause 77, page 72, line 2, leave out from “must” to “the” in line 3 and insert “make regulations specifying”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that the Secretary of State must specify the threshold figure in regulations (rather than in a published statement).
239H: Clause 77, page 72, line 4, leave out subsection (3)Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the first amendment of this Clause in my name.
239J: Clause 77, page 72, line 11, leave out “to (3)” and insert “and (2)”  Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the preceding amendment of this Clause in my name.
239K: Clause 77, page 72, line 12, leave out “A” and insert “Regulations must provide that a”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the first amendment of this Clause in my name.
239L: Clause 77, page 72, line 14, leave out from beginning to “at” and insert “Regulations specifying a threshold figure must be in force”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations specifying a threshold figure must be in force at least 9 months before the first charging year for which that figure applies.
239M: Clause 77, page 72, line 17, leave out “threshold figure published” and insert “regulations made”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the first amendment of this Clause in my name.
Amendments 239G to 239M agreed.

  
Clause 79: OFCOM’s fees statements

Amendments 239N and 239P

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
239N: Clause 79, page 73, line 18, leave out from “period”” to end of line 19 and insert “for the purposes of this Part, and”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause 76 proposed in my name.
239P: Clause 79, page 73, line 20, leave out “published in accordance with” and insert “contained in regulations under”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the first amendment of Clause 77 in my name (threshold figure now to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State).
Amendments 239N and 239P agreed.

  
Clause 82: General duties of OFCOM under section 3 of the Communications Act

Amendment 240

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: Moved by Baroness Harding of Winscombe
240: Clause 82, page 74, line 25, leave out “presented by content”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that Ofcom is empowered to consider harms presented by features, functionalities, behaviours and the design and operation of services not just by content.

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: My Lords, if I may, I shall speak very briefly, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Kidron, and because I am one of the signatories of this amendment, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Amendment 240, together with a number of amendments that we will be debating today, turns on a fundamental issue that we have not yet resolved.
I came in this morning being told that we would be voting on this amendment and that other amendments later today would be consequential—I am a novice at  this level of parliamentary procedure, so forgive me if I have got myself confused during the day—but I now understand that my noble friend considers this amendment to be consequential but, strangely, the amendments right at the end of the day are not. I just wanted to flag to the House that they all cover the same fundamental issue of whether harms can be unrelated to content, whether the harms of the online world can be to do with functionality—the systems and processes that drive the addiction that causes so much harm to our children.
It is a fundamental disagreement. I pay tribute to the amount of time the department, the Secretary of State and my noble friend have spent on it, but it is not yet resolved and, although I understand that I should now say that I beg leave to move the amendment formally, I just wanted to mark, with apologies, the necessity, most likely, of having to bring the same issue back to vote on later today.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, His Majesty’s Government indeed agree that this is consequential on the other amendments, including Amendment 35, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, previously moved at Report. We disagreed with them, but we lost that vote; this is consequential, and we will not force a Division on it.
We will have further opportunity to debate the fundamental issues that lie behind it, to which my noble friend Lady Harding just referred. Some of the amendments on which we may divide later, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, tabled after defeating the Government the other day, so we cannot treat them as consequential. We look forward to debating them; I will urge noble Lords not to vote for them, but we will have opportunity to discuss them later.
Amendment 240 agreed.

Amendment 241

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
241: Clause 82, page 74, line 31, leave out “or 3” and insert “, 3 or 3A”Member’s explanatory statementClause 82 is about OFCOM’s general duties. This amendment and the next amendment in my name insert a reference to Chapter 3A, which is the new Chapter containing the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Amendment 241 agreed.
Amendment 242 not moved.

Amendment 243

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
243: Clause 82, page 75, line 2, leave out “or 3” and insert “, 3 or 3A”Member’s explanatory statementSee the explanatory statement for the preceding amendment in my name.
Amendment 243 agreed.
Amendment 244 not moved.

  
Schedule 11: Categories of regulated user-to-user services and regulated search services: regulations

Amendment 245

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: Moved by Baroness Morgan of Cotes
245: Schedule 11, page 223, line 32, leave out “and” and insert “or”

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House and I beg to move.
Ayes 196, Noes 183.

Amendment 245 agreed.

  
Clause 91: Power to require information

Amendments 246 and 247

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
246: Clause 91, page 83, line 14, leave out “(an “information notice”)”  Member’s explanatory statementThis technical amendment is needed because the new notice requiring information in connection with an investigation into the death of a child (see the new Clause proposed after Clause 91 in my name) is also a form of information notice.
247: Clause 91, page 83, line 19, at end insert—“(b) provide information about the use of a service by a named individual.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that OFCOM have power by notice to require providers to provide information about a particular person’s use of a service.
Amendments 246 and 247 agreed.

Amendment 247A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
247A: Clause 91, page 83, line 19, at end insert—“(2A) The power conferred by subsection (1) also includes power to require a person within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) to take steps so that OFCOM are able to remotely access the service provided by the person, or remotely access equipment used by the service provided by the person, in order to view, in particular—(a) information demonstrating in real time the operation of systems, processes or features, including functionalities and algorithms, used by the service;(b) information generated in real time by the performance of a test or demonstration of a kind required by a notice under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that OFCOM have the power by notice to require a provider of a regulated service (among others) to take steps to allow OFCOM to remotely access the service so that they can view the operation in real time of systems, processes, functionalities and algorithms, and tests and demonstrations.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I beg to move Amendment 247A.
Amendment 247B (to Amendment 247A) not moved.
Amendment 247A agreed.

Amendments 248 to 248C

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
248: Clause 91, page 84, line 2, at end insert—“(iva) any duty set out in section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users) (deceased child users),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment mentions the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name in the Clause that sets out the purposes for which OFCOM may require people to provide information.
248A: Clause 91, page 84, line 12, leave out “section 75 (duty to pay fees)” and insert “Part 6 (fees)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that OFCOM’s powers to gather information in relation to a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue apply for the purposes of Part 6.
248B: Clause 91, page 84, line 37, leave out “duty” and insert “duties”   Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 149 in my name expanding OFCOM’s duties to promote media literacy in relation to regulated user-to-user and search services.
248C: Clause 91, page 84, line 38, leave out “duty to promote”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 149 in my name expanding OFCOM’s duties to promote media literacy in relation to regulated user-to-user and search services.
Amendments 248 to 248C agreed.

Amendment 249

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
249: After Clause 91, insert the following new Clause—“Information in connection with an investigation into the death of a child(1) OFCOM may by notice under this subsection require a relevant person to provide them with information for the purpose of—(a) responding to a notice given by a senior coroner under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in connection with an investigation into the death of a child, or preparing a report under section (OFCOM’s report in connection with investigation into a death) in connection with such an investigation;(b) responding to a request for information in connection with the investigation of a procurator fiscal into, or an inquiry held or to be held in relation to, the death of a child, or preparing a report under section (OFCOM’s report in connection with investigation into a death) in connection with such an inquiry;(c) responding to a notice given by a coroner under section 17A(2) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 15 (N.I.)) in connection with—(i) an investigation to determine whether an inquest into the death of a child is necessary, or(ii) an inquest in relation to the death of a child,or preparing a report under section (OFCOM’s report in connection with investigation into a death) in connection with such an investigation or inquest. (2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to require a relevant person to provide OFCOM with information about the use of a regulated service by the child whose death is under investigation, including, in particular—(a) content encountered by the child by means of the service,(b) how the content came to be encountered by the child (including the role of algorithms or particular functionalities),(c) how the child interacted with the content (for example, by viewing, sharing or storing it or enlarging or pausing on it), and(d) content generated, uploaded or shared by the child.(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to require a relevant person to obtain or generate information.(4) The power conferred by subsection (1) must be exercised in a way that is proportionate to the purpose mentioned in that subsection.(5) The power conferred by subsection (1) does not include power to require the provision of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege, or (in Scotland) to confidentiality of communications, could be maintained in legal proceedings.  (6) Nothing in this section limits the power conferred on OFCOM by section 91.(7) In this section—“inquiry” means an inquiry held, or to be held, under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 2);“information” includes documents, and any reference to providing information includes a reference to producing a document (and see also section 92(9));“relevant person” means a person within any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 91(4).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that OFCOM have the power to obtain information for the purposes of responding to a notice given to them by a coroner or, in Scotland, a request from a procurator fiscal, in connection with the death of a child, including a power to obtain information from providers about the use of a service by the deceased child.
Amendment 249 agreed.

  
Clause 92: Information notices

Amendments 250 and 250A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
250: Clause 92, page 85, line 3, at end insert—“(A1) A notice given under section 91(1) or (Information in connection with an investigation into the death of a child)(1) is referred to in this Act as an information notice.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that a notice under the new Clause proposed in my name concerning OFCOM’s power to obtain information in connection with an investigation into the death of a child is called an “information notice” (as well as a notice under Clause 91). This ensures that provisions of the Bill that relate to information notices also apply to a notice given under that Clause.
250A: Clause 92, page 85, line 24, leave out “provide the information” and insert “act”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment ensures that the duty to comply with an information notice covers the case where a provider is required to take steps to allow OFCOM to remotely access the service.
Amendments 250 and 250A agreed.

  
Clause 94: Reports by skilled persons

Amendment 250B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
250B: Clause 94, page 86, line 26, leave out “any” and insert “either”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the next amendment of Clause 94 in my name.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, these amendments are concerned with Ofcom’s powers under Clause 111 to issue notices to deal with terrorism content and child sexual exploitation and abuse content.
I acknowledge the concerns which have been aired about how these powers work with encrypted services. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not require companies to break or weaken encryption, and we have built in strong safeguards to ensure that users’  privacy is protected. Encryption plays an important role online, and the UK supports its responsible use. I also want to make it clear that we are not introducing a blanket requirement for companies to monitor all content for all harms, at all times. That would not be proportionate.
However, given the serious risk of harm to children from sexual abuse and exploitation online, the regulator must have appropriate, tightly targeted powers to compel companies to take the most effective action to tackle such reprehensible illegal activity which is taking place on their services. We must ask companies to do all that is technically feasible to keep children safe, subject to stringent legal safeguards.
The powers in the Bill are predicated on risk assessments. If companies are managing the risks on their platform appropriately, Ofcom will not need to use its powers. As a last resort, however, where there is clear evidence of child sexual abuse taking place on a platform, Ofcom will be able to direct companies either to use, or to make best efforts to develop or source, accredited and accurate technology to identify and remove this illegal content. To be clear, these powers will not enable Ofcom or our law enforcement agencies to obtain any automatic access to the content detected. It is simply a matter of making private companies take effective action to prevent child sexual abuse on their services.
Ofcom must consider a wide range of matters when deciding whether a notice is necessary and proportionate, including the impacts on privacy and freedom of expression of using a particular technology on a particular service. Ofcom will only be able to require the use of technology accredited as highly accurate in detecting illegal child sexual abuse or terrorism content, vastly minimising the risk that content is wrongly identified.
In addition to these safeguards, as a public body, Ofcom is bound through the Human Rights Act 1998 by the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 8 and 10. Ofcom has an obligation not to act in a way which unduly interferes with the right to privacy and freedom of expression when carrying out its duties, for which it is held to account.
If appropriate technology does not exist which meets these requirements, Ofcom cannot require its use. That is why the powers include the ability for Ofcom to require companies to make best endeavours to develop or source a solution. It is right that we can require technology companies to use their considerable resources and expertise to develop the best possible protections for children in encrypted environments.
Despite the breadth of the existing safeguards, we recognise that concerns remain about these powers, and we have listened to the points that noble Lords raised in Committee about privacy and technical feasibility. That is why we are introducing additional safeguards. I am grateful for the constructive engagement I have had with noble Lords across your Lordships’ House on this issue, and I hope that the government amendments alleviate their concerns.
I turn first to our Amendments 250B, 250C, 250D, 255A, 256A, 257A, 257B, 257C and 258A, which require that Ofcom obtain a skilled persons’ report before issuing a warning notice and exercising its  powers under Clause 111. This independent expert scrutiny will supplement Ofcom’s own expertise to ensure that it has a full understanding of relevant technical issues to inform its decision-making. That will include issues specific to the service in question, such as its design and relevant factors relating to privacy.
We are confident that, in addition to Ofcom’s existing routes of evidence-gathering, Amendment 256A will help to provide the regulator with the necessary information to determine whether to issue a notice and the requirements that may be put in place. That will further help Ofcom to issue a notice which is targeted and proportionate.
Ofcom will need to appoint a skilled person and notify the provider about the appointment and the relevant matters to be explored in the report before issuing its final notice. Ofcom will have discretion over what should be included in the report, as this will depend on the specific circumstances. Under Amendments 257A and 257B, Ofcom must also provide a summary of the report to the relevant provider when issuing a warning notice. That will enable the provider to make representations based on Ofcom’s own analysis and that of the skilled person.
I turn now to Amendments 257D, 257E and 257F. We have heard concerns about the impact that scanning technologies could have on journalistic content and sources. Any technology required by Ofcom must be highly accurate in detecting only terrorism content on public channels or only child sexual exploitation and abuse content on public or private channels. So, the likelihood of journalistic content or sources being compromised will be low—but to reassure your Lordships further, we have expanded the matters that Ofcom must consider in its decision-making.
Amendment 257D requires Ofcom to consider the impact that the use of a particular technology on a particular service would have on the availability of journalistic content and the confidentiality of journalistic sources when considering whether to issue a notice. It builds on the existing safeguards in Clause 113 regarding freedom of expression and privacy. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his constructive engagement on this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, I am conscious of the imprecation earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that we keep our contributions short, but I intend to take no notice of it. That is for the very good reason that I do not think the public would understand why we disposed of such a momentous matter as bringing to an end end-to-end encryption on private messaging services as a mere technicality and a brief debate at the end of Report.
It is my view that end-to-end encryption is assumed nowadays by the vast majority of people using private messaging services such as WhatsApp, iMessage and Signal. They are unaware, I think, of the fact that it is about to be taken from them by Clause 111 of the Bill. My amendment would prevent that. It is fairly plain; it says that
“A notice under subsection (1)”
of Clause 111
“may not impose a requirement relating to a service if the effect of that requirement would be to require the provider of the service to weaken or remove end-to-end encryption applied in relation to the service”.
My noble friend says that there is no threat of ending end-to-end encryption in his proposal, but he achieves that by conflating two things—which I admit my own amendment conflates, but I will come back to that towards the end. They are the encryption of platforms and the encryption of private messaging services. I am much less concerned about the former. I am concerned about private messaging services. If my noble friend was serious in meaning that there was no threat to end-to-end encryption, then I cannot see why he would not embrace my amendment, but the fact that he does not is eloquent proof that it is in fact under threat, as is the fact that the NSPCC and the Internet Watch Foundation are so heavily lobbying against my amendment. They would not be doing that if they did not think it had a serious effect.
I shall not repeat at any length the technical arguments we had in Committee, but the simple fact is that if you open a hole into end-to-end encryption, as would be required by this provision, then other people can get through that hole, and the security of the system is compromised. Those other people may not be very nice; they could be hostile state actors—we know hostile state actors who are well enough resourced to do this—but they could also be our own security services and others, from whom we expect protection. Normally, we do get a degree of protection from those services, because they are required to have some form of warrant or prior approval but, as I have explained previously in debate on this, these powers being given to Ofcom require no warrant or prior approval in order to be exercised. So there is a vulnerability, but there is also a major assault on privacy. That is the point on which I intend to start my conclusion.
If we reflect for a moment, the evolution of this Bill in your Lordships’ House has been characterised and shaped, to a large extent, by the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, when he spoke at Second Reading, to take a collaborative approach. But that collaborative approach has barely extended to those noble Lords concerned about privacy and freedom of expression. As a result, in my view, those noble Lords rightly promoting child protection have been reckless to the point of overreaching themselves.
If we stood back and had to explain to outsiders that we were taking steps today that took end-to-end encryption and the privacy they expect on their private messaging services away from them, together with the security and protection it gives, of course, in relation to scams and frauds and all the other things where it has a public benefit, then I think they would be truly outraged. I do not entirely understand how the Government think they could withstand that outrage, were it expressed publicly. I actually believe that the battle for this Bill—this part of this Bill, certainly—is only just starting. We may be coming to the end here, but I do not think that this Bill is settled, because this issue is such a sensitive one.
Given the manifest and widespread lack of support for my views on this question in your Lordships’ House in Committee, I will not be testing the opinion  of the House today. I think I know what the opinion of the House is, but it is wrong, and it will have to be revised. My noble friend simply cannot stand there and claim that what he is proposing is proportionate and necessary, because it blatantly and manifestly is not.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, the powers in Clause 111 are perhaps the most controversial outstanding issue in the Bill. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that they deserve some continued scrutiny. I suspect that Members of another place are being lobbied on this extensively right now. Again, it is one of the few issues; they may not have heard of the Online Safety Bill, but they will do in the context of this particular measure.
We debated the rights and wrongs of encryption at some length in Committee, and I will not repeat those points today, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has made some of the arguments as to why encryption is important. I will instead today focus on the future process, assuming that the Clause 111 powers will be available to Ofcom as drafted and that we are not going to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Amendments 258 and 258ZA, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, both aim to improve the process of issuing a Clause 111 order by adding in some necessary checks and balances.
As we debate this group, we should remember that the Clause 111 powers are not specific to encrypted services—I think the Minister made this point—and we should have the broader context in mind. I often try to bring some concrete scenarios to our discussions, and it may be helpful to consider three different scenarios in which Ofcom might reach for a Clause 111 notice.
The first is where a provider has no particular objections to using technology to identify and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material or terrorist material but is just being slow to do this. There are mature systems out there. PhotoDNA is very well known in the industry and effectively has a database with digital signatures of known child sexual exploitation material. All the services we use on a daily basis such as Facebook, Instagram and others will check uploaded photos against that database and, where it is child sexual exploitation material, they will make sure that it does not get shown and that those people are reported to the authorities.
I can imagine scenarios where Ofcom is dealing with a service which has not yet implemented the technology—but does not have a problem doing it—and the material is unencrypted so there is no technical barrier; it is just being a bit slow. In those scenarios, Ofcom will tell the service to get on with it or it will get a Clause 111 notice. In those circumstances, in most cases the service will just get on with it, so Ofcom will be using the threat of the notice as a way to encourage the slow coaches. That is pretty unexceptional; it will work in a pretty straightforward way. I think the most common use of these notices may be to bring outliers into the pack of those who are following best practice. Ofcom may not even need to issue any kind of warning notice at all and will not get past the warning notice period. Waving a warning notice in front of a provider may be sufficient to get it to move.
The second scenario is one where the provider equally does not object to the use of the technology but would prefer to have a notice before it implements it. Outside the world of tech companies, it may seem a little strange why a provider would want to be ordered to do something rather than doing the right thing voluntarily, but we have to remember that the use of this kind of technology is legally fraught in many jurisdictions. There have been court cases in a number of places, not least the European Union, where there are people who will challenge whether you should use this technology on unencrypted services, never mind encrypted ones. In those cases, you can imagine there will be providers, particularly those established outside the United Kingdom, which may say, “Look, we are fine implementing this technology, but Ofcom please can you give us a notice? Then when someone challenges it in court, we can say that the UK regulator made us do it”. That would be helpful to them. This second group will want a notice and here we will get to the point of the notice being issued. They are not going to contest it; they want to have the notice because it gives them some kind of legal protection.
I think those two groups are relatively straightforward: we are dealing with companies which are being slow or are looking for legal cover but do not fundamentally object. The third scenario, though, is the most challenging and it is where I think the Government could get into real trouble. My amendments seek to help the Government in situations where a provider fundamentally objects to being ordered to deploy a particular technology because it believes that that technology will create real privacy threats and risks to the service that it offers. I do not think the provider is being awkward in these circumstances; it has genuine concerns about the implications of the technology being developed or which it is being instructed to deploy.
In these circumstances, Ofcom may have all the reasons in the world to argue why it thinks that what it is asking for is reasonable. However, the affected provider may not accept those reasons and take quite a strong counterview and have all sorts of other arguments as to why what it is being asked to do is unacceptable and too high-risk. This debate has been swirling around at the moment as we think about current models of end-to-end encryption and client-side scanning technology, but we need to recognise that this Bill is going to be around for a while and there may be all sorts of other technologies being ordered to be deployed that we do not even know about and have not even been developed yet. At any point, we may hit this impasse where Ofcom is saying it thinks it is perfectly reasonable to order a company to do it and the service provider is saying, “No, as we look at this, our experts and our lawyers are telling us that this is fundamentally problematic from a privacy point of view”.
The amendments I have tabled do not stop Ofcom from issuing any kind of order for any kind of technology. In Amendment 258, we are saying that, where there is a disagreement, there should be a point where the public can join the debate. However, I really want to focus on Amendment 258ZA, where we are saying that in those circumstances the provider should have  a statutory right to refer it to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will try to press this to a vote, so I hope people are listening to the argument because I think it is well intended. The right to refer it to the Information Commissioner’s Office is not only the sensible thing to do but will help the Government if they are trying to get a company to deploy a technology. It will help and strengthen their case if they have made it clear that there will be this important check and balance.
As we have discussed a lot through this debate, these are safety/privacy trade-offs. In some cases, it is a real trade-off—more privacy can sometimes compromise safety because people are able to do things in private that are problematic. At the same time, more privacy can sometimes be a benefit for safety if it protects you from fraudsters. But there certainly are occasions where there are genuine safety/privacy trade-offs. In this Bill, we are charging Ofcom with creating the highest level of safety for the people in the UK when they are online. Ofcom will be our safety regulator and that is its overriding duty. I am sure the Minister will argue it also has to think about privacy and other things, but if you look at the Bill in total, Ofcom’s primary responsibility is clear: it is safety, particularly child safety.
We have created the Information Commissioner’s Office as the guardian of our privacy rights and tasked it with enforcing a body of data protection law, so Ofcom is our primary safety regulator and the ICO is our primary privacy regulator. It seems to me entirely sensible and rational to say that, if our safety regulator is ordering a provider to do something on the grounds of safety and the provider thinks it is problematic, the provider should be able to go to our privacy regulator and say, “You two regulators both have a look at this. Both come to a view and, on the basis of that, we can decide what to do”.
That is really what Amendment 258ZA is intended to do. It does not intend to handcuff Ofcom in any way or stop it doing anything it thinks is important. It does not intend to frustrate child safety; it simply intends to make sure that there is a proper balance in place so that, where a provider has genuine concerns, it can go to the regulator that we have charged with being responsible for privacy regulation.
The reason that this is important and why we are spending a little more time on it today is that there is a genuine risk that services being used by millions of people in the United Kingdom could leave. We often focus on some of the more familiar brands such as WhatsApp and others, but we need to remember things such as iMessage. If you use an Apple phone and use iMessage, that is end-to-end encrypted. That is the kind of service that could find it really problematic. Apple has said, “Privacy is all”, and is going to be thinking about the global market. If it was ordered to deploy a technology which it thought was unsafe, Apple would have to think very carefully about being in the UK market.
To say that Apple has a right to go to the ICO and ask for a review is perfectly reasonable and sensible. I suspect that the Minister may try to argue for the skilled person’s concession that they have made—which is helpful and is material—could involve a review by data protection officials, but that is not the same as  getting an authoritative decision from the privacy regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is helpful and those amendments are welcome; I would say that the skilled person’s report is necessary but far from sufficient in these circumstances where there is that fundamental view.
If I can try to sell it to the Government, if they accept this amendment and Ofcom says it needs this technology to be deployed for safety reasons and the ICO says it has looked at it as the privacy regulator and has no objections, the onus is on the company. Then it looks like the provider, if it chooses to leave the United Kingdom market, is doing so voluntarily because there are no fundamental objections.
If, on the other hand, the ICO says it is problematic, we know then that we need to carry on discussing and debating whether that technology is appropriate and whether the safety/privacy balance has been got right. So, whether you support more scanning of content or are concerned about more scanning of content, to have the providers of the services that we all use every day, in the circumstances where they think there is a fundamental threat, being able to go to our privacy regulator, which we have set up precisely to guard our privacy rights, and ask it for an opinion, I do not think is an excessive ask. I hope that the Government will either accept the amendment or make a commitment that they will bring in something comparable at Third Reading. Absent that, we feel that this is important enough that we should test the opinion of the House in due course.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I have put my name to and support Amendment 255, laid by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which straight- forwardly means that a notice may not impose a requirement relating to a service that would require that provider to weaken or remove end-to-end encryption. It is very clear. I understand that the other amendments introduce safeguards, which is better than nothing. It is not what I would like, but I will support them if they are pushed a vote. I think that the Government should really consider seriously not going anywhere near getting rid of encryption in this Bill and reconsider it by the time we get to Third Reading.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained, this is becoming widely known about now, and it is causing some concern. If passed, this Bill, as it is at the moment, gives Ofcom far-reaching powers to force services, such as WhatsApp, to install software that would scan all our private messages to see whether there is evidence of terrorism, child sexual exploitation or abusive content and would automatically send a report to third parties, such as law enforcement, if it suspects wrongdoing—all without the consent or control of the sender or the intended recipient.
I would just like to state that encryption is a wonderful innovation. That is why more than 40 million people in the UK use it every day. It ensures that our private messages cannot be viewed, compromised or altered by anyone else, not even providers of chat services. It really requires somebody handing them over to a journalist and saying, “You can have my WhatsApp messages for anyone to read them”: beyond that, you cannot read them.
One of the interesting things that we have discussed throughout the passage of the Bill is technologies, their design and functionality and making sure they are not harmful. Ironically, it is the design and function of encryption that actually helps to keep us safe online. That is why so many people talk about civil libertarians, journalists and brave dissenters using it. For the rest of us, it is a tool to protect our data and private communications in the digital realm. I just want to pose here that it is an irony that the technologies being proposed in terms of client-side scanning are the technologies that are potentially harmful because it is, as people have noted, the equivalent of putting video cameras in our homes to listening in to every conversation and send reports to the police if we discuss illicit topics. As I have said before, while child sexual abuse is horrendous and vile, we know that it happens largely in the home and, as yet, the Government have not advocated that we film in everybody’s home in order to stop child sexual abuse. We should do almost anything and everything that we can, but I think this is the wrong answer.
Focusing on encryption just makes no sense. The Government have made exemptions, recognising the importance, in a democracy, of private correspondence: so exempted in the Bill are text messages, MSN, Zoom, oral commentaries and email. It seems perverse to demonise encryption in this way. I also note that there are exemptions for anything sent on message apps by law enforcement or public sector or emergency responders. I appreciate that some government communications are said to be done over apps such as WhatsApp. It seems then that the target of this part of the Bill is UK private citizens and residents and that the public are seen as the people who must be spied on.
In consequence, I do not think it surprising that more than 80 national or international civil society organisations have said that this would make the UK the first liberal democracy to require the routine scanning of people’s private chat messages. What does the Minister say to the legal opinion from the technology barrister Matthew Ryder KC, commissioned by Index on Censorship precisely on this part of the Bill? He compares this to law enforcement wiretapping without a warrant and says that the Bill will grant Ofcom a wider remit of surveillance powers over the public than GCHQ has.
Even if the Minister is not interested in lawyers or civil libertarians, surely we should be listening to the advice of science and technology experts in relation to complex technological solutions. Which experts have been consulted? I noted that Matthew Hodgson, the boss of encrypting messaging app Element, has said wryly that
“the Government has not consulted with UK tech firms, only with huge multinational corporations and companies that want to sell software that scans messages, who are unsurprisingly telling lawmakers that it is possible to scan messages without breaking encryption”.
The problem is that it is not possible to scan those messages without breaking encryption. It is actually misinformation to say that. That is why whole swathes of leading scientists and technologists from across the globe have recently put out an open letter explaining why and how it is not true. They explained that it creates really dangerous side-effects that can be harmful in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained,  in terms of security, and makes the online world less safe for many of us. Existing scanning technologies are flawed and ineffective and scanning will nullify the purpose of encryption. I refer noble Lords to the work of the Internet Society and the academic paper Bugs in Our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning for more details on all the peer-reviewed work.
I understand that, given the horrific nature of child sexual abuse—and, of course, terrorism, but I shall concentrate on child sexual abuse because the Bill is so concerned with it—it can be tempting for the Government to hope that there is a technological silver bullet to eradicate it. But the evidence suggests otherwise. One warning from scientists is that scanning billions of pieces of content could lead to millions of false positives and that could not only frame innocent users but could mean that the police become overwhelmed, diverting valuable resources away from real investigations into child sexual abuse.
A study by the Max Planck Institute for the study of crime of a similar German law that lasted from 2008 to 2010 found that the German police having access to huge amounts of data did not have any deterrent effect, did not assist in cleaning up crimes or increase convictions, but did waste a lot of police time. So it is important that this draconian invasion of privacy is not stated as necessary for protecting children. I share the exasperation of Signal’s president Meredith Whittaker, who challenged the Secretary of State and pointed out that there were some double standards here: for example, slashing early intervention programmes over the past decade did not help protect children and chronically underfunding and underresourcing child social care does not help.
My own bugbears are that when I, having talked to social workers and colleagues, raised the dangers to child protection when we closed down schools in lockdown, they were brushed to one side. When I and others raised the horrors of the young girls who had been systematically raped by grooming gangs whom the authorities had ignored for many, many years, I was told to stop talking about it. There are real threats to children that we ignore. I do not want us in this instance to use that very emotive discussion to attack privacy.
I also want to stress that there is no complacency here. Law enforcement agencies in the UK already possess a wide range of powers to seize devices and compel passwords and even covertly to monitor and hack accounts to identify criminal activity. That is good. Crucially, private messaging services can and do— I am sure they could do more—work in a wide range of ways to tackle abuse and keep people safe without the need to scan or read people’s messages.
I did listen to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, saying, “Don’t speak too long”. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I did not speak on any other group so that I could make these points—I spoke very briefly to agree with the noble Lord, but that was for one minute. I cannot stress enough that while I have talked a lot about freedom of speech, it is hugely important that we do not jeopardise the public’s privacy  online by falsely claiming that it will protect children. It will also see the end of Rishi Sunak’s dream of the UK becoming a technology superpower, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, explained. It is not good for the growth agenda because those organisations—WhatsApp and so on—will leave the UK, but, largely, it is in defence of privacy that I urge noble Lords to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, or vote for whichever is moved.

Lord Kamall: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. Given that I understand he is not going to press it, and while I see Amendment 255 as the ideal amendment, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement- Jones, for their Amendments 256, 257 and 259, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Allan of Hallam, for Amendments 258 and 258ZA.
I will try to be as brief as I can. I think about two principles—unintended consequences and the history of technology transfer. The point about technology transfer is that once a technology is used it becomes available to other people quickly, even bad guys, whether that was intended or not. There is obviously formal technology transfer, where you have agreement or knowledge transfer via foreign investment, but let us think about the Cold War and some of the great technological developments—atomic secrets, Concorde and the space shuttle. In no time at all, the other side had that access, and that was before the advent of the internet.
If we are to open a door for access to encrypted messages, that technology will be available to the bad guys in no time at all, and they will use it against dissidents, many of whom will be in contact with journalists and human rights organisations in this country and elsewhere. Therefore, the unintended consequence may well be that in seeking to protect children in this country by accessing encrypted messages or unencrypted messages, we may well be damaging the childhoods of children in other countries when their parents, who are dissidents, are suddenly taken away and maybe the whole family is wiped out. Let us be careful about those unintended consequences.
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendments about ensuring journalistic integrity, such as Amendment 257D and others. They are important. However, we must remember that once these technologies are available, everyone has a price and that technology will be transferred to the bad guys.
Given that my noble friend Lord Moylan will not press Amendment 255, let us talk about some of the other amendments—I will make some general points rather than go into specifics, as many noble Lords have raised these points. These amendments are sub-optimal, but at least there is some accountability for Ofcom being able to use this power and using it sensibly and proportionately. One of the things that has run throughout this Bill and other Bills is “who regulates the regulators?” and ensuring that regulators are accountable. The amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Allan of Hallam, go some way towards ensuring that safeguards are in place. If the Government are  not prepared to have an explicit statement that they will not allow access to encrypted messages, I hope that there will be some support for the noble Lords’ amendments.

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: My Lords, I promise to speak very briefly. I welcome the Government’s amendments. I particularly welcome that they appear to mirror partly some of the safeguards that are embedded in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
I have one question for my noble friend the Minister about the wording, “a skilled person”. I am worried that “a skilled person” is a very vague term. I have been taken all through the course of this Bill by the comparison with the Investigatory Powers Act and the need to think carefully about how we balance the importance of privacy with the imperative of protecting our children and being able to track down the most evil and wicked perpetrators online. That is very similar to the debates that we had here several years ago on the Investigatory Powers Act.
The IPA created the Technical Advisory Board. It is not a decision-making body. Its purpose is to advise the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and judicial commissioners on the impact of changing technology and the development of techniques to use investigatory powers while maintaining privacy. It is an expert panel constituted to advise the regulator—in this case, the judicial commissioner—specifically on technology interventions that must balance this really difficult trade-off between privacy and child protection. Why have we not followed the same recipe? Rather than having a skilled person, why would we not have a technology advisory panel of a similar standing where it is clear to all who the members are. Those members would be required to produce a regular report. It might not need to be as regular as the IPA one, but it would just take what the Government have already laid one step further towards institutionalising the independent check that is really important if these Ofcom powers were ever to be used.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I added my name to some amendments on this issue in Committee. I have not done so on Report, not least because I have been so occupied with other things and have not had the time to focus on this. However, I remain concerned about this part of the Bill. I am sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 255, but listening to this debate and studying all the amendments in this group, I am a little confused and so have some simple questions.
First, I heard my noble friend the Minister say that the Government have no intention to require the platforms to carry out general monitoring, but is that now specific in any of the amendments that he has tabled? Regarding the amendments which would bring further safeguards around the oversight of Ofcom’s use of this power, like my noble friend Lady Harding, I have always been concerned that the oversight approach should be in line with that for the Investigatory Powers Act and could never understand why it was not in the original version of the Bill. Like her, I am pleased that the Government have tabled some amendments, but I am not yet convinced that they go far enough.
That leads me to the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. As his noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has added his name to it, perhaps he could answer my question when he gets up. Would the safeguards that are outlined there—the introduction of the Information Commissioner—meet the concerns of the big tech companies? Do we know whether it would meet their needs and therefore lead them not to feel it necessary to withdraw their services from the UK? I am keen to understand that.
There is another thing that might be of benefit for anyone listening to this debate who is not steeped in the detail of this Bill, and I look to any of those winding up to answer it—including my noble friend the Minister. Is this an end to end-to-end encryption? Is that what is happening in this Bill? Or is this about ensuring that what is already permissible in terms of the authorities being able to use their powers to go after suspected criminals is somehow codified in this Bill to make sure it has proper safeguards around it? That is still not clear. It would be very helpful to get that clarity from my noble friend, or others.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. My noble friend has spoken very cogently to Amendment 258ZA, and I say in answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness that I do not think this is designed to make big tech companies content. What it is designed to do is bring this out into the open and make it contestable; to see whether or not privacy is being invaded in these circumstances. To that extent it airs the issues and goes quite a long way towards allaying the concerns of those 80 organisations that we have heard from.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments of my noble friend, but many noble Lords, not least on the opposite Benches, have taken us through some of the potential security and privacy concerns which were also raised by my noble friends, and other reasons for us on these Benches putting forward these amendments. We recognise those concerns and indeed we recognise concerns on both sides. We have all received briefs from the NSPCC and the IWF, but I do not believe that essentially what is being proposed here in our amendments, or indeed by the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, are designed in any way to prevent Ofcom doing its duty in relation to child sexual abuse and exploitation material in private messaging. We believe that review by the ICO to ensure that there is no invasion of privacy is a very useful mechanism.
We have all tried to find solutions and the Minister has put forward his stab at this with the skilled persons report. The trouble is, that does not go far enough, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. Effectively, Ofcom can choose the skilled person and what the skilled person is asked to advise on. It is not necessarily comprehensive and that is essentially the major flaw.
As regards the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, it is interesting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission itself said:
“We are concerned by the extent and seriousness of CSEA content being shared online. But these proposed measures may be  a disproportionate infringement on millions of individuals’ right to privacy where those individuals are not suspected of any wrongdoing”.
It goes on to say:
“We recommend that Ofcom should be required to apply to an independent judicial commissioner—as is the case for mass surveillance under the Investigatory Powers Act”.
I am sure that is the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put forward his amendments; if he put them to a vote, we would follow and support. Otherwise, we will put our own amendments to the House.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, this has been—since we first got sight of the Bill and right the way through—one of the most difficult issues to try to find balance and a solution. I know that people have ridiculed my attempt to try and get people to speak less in earlier amendments. Actually, in part it was so we could have a longer debate here—so the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, should not be so cross with me, and I hope that we can continue to be friends, as we are outside the Chamber, on all points, not just this one.
Talk is not getting us to a solution on this, unfortunately. I say to the Minister: I wonder whether there is a case here for pausing a little bit longer on this, because I still do not think we have got to the bottom of where the balance lies. I want to explain why I say that, because, in a way, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in worrying that there are some deeper questions here that we have not quite got the answers to. Nothing in the current amendments gets us to quite the right place.
I started by thinking that, if only because Ofcom was being seen to be placed in a position of both being a part of the regulatory process, but also having the rights to interpose itself into where this issue about encryption came up, Ofcom needed the safety of an external judicial review along the lines of the current RIPA system. That has led us to my Amendments 256, 257 and 259, which try to distil that sensibility into a workable frame for the Bill and these issues. I will not push it to a vote. It is there because I wanted to have in the discussion a proper look at what the RIPA proposal would look like in practice.
In the intervening period between Committee and today, the Government have also laid their amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has introduced very well. I like a lot of them; they go a long way down the track to where we want to be on this. I particularly like the protection for journalistic content, which I think was lacking before. The way of introducing the skilled person into it, and the obtaining of an externally sourced report—even it is internally commissioned—does bring in an outside voice which will be helpful. The addition of privacy to that makes sure that the issues addressed will be the ones that need to be bottomed out before any decisions are taken.
It is helpful to state—again, repeated, and implicit in the amendments, but it is nice to see it again—that this is not about Ofcom as the regulator looking at people’s messages. It is clearly about making sure that there is the capacity to investigate criminality where it is clearly suspected and where evidence exists for that, and that the companies themselves have the responsibility  for taking the action as a result. That is a good place to be, and I think it is right. The difficulty is that I do not think that that sensibility quite takes the trick about what society as a whole should expect from the regulator in relation to this particular activity. It leaves open the question of how much external supervision there would really be.
If we accept that it is not about Ofcom reading private messages or general monitoring—which I note the Minister has confirmed today; he was a bit reluctant to do so in Committee, but I am grateful to him for repeating it today—where is it in the statute? That is a good question: perhaps we could have an answer to it, because I do not think it does appear. It is important to reassure people that there is nothing in this set of proposals, and nothing in the Bill, that requires Ofcom to generally survey the material which is passing through the system. I still think people are concerned that this is about breaking end-to-end encryption, and that this is an attack on privacy which would be a very bad step. If that remains the situation and the Government have failed to convince, that therefore reinforces my suggestion to the Minister that at the end of this debate he might feel it necessary to spend a little more time and discussion trying to get us to where we want to go.
I am very grateful to those who have suggested that our amendments are the right way to go. As I have said, I will not be pushing them—the reasons being that I think they go a little too far, but a little more of that would not be a bad thing. The Government are almost there with that, but I think a bit more time, effort and concern about some of the suggestions would probably get us to a better place than we are at the moment. I particularly think that about those from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, about taking the lessons from what has happened in other places and trying to systematise that so it is clear that there are external persons and we know who they are, what their backgrounds are and what their roles will be. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when he comes to respond, but, just for confirmation, I do not think this is the appropriate place to vote, and should a vote be called, we will be abstaining.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am grateful to noble Lords for their further scrutiny of this important but complex area, and for the engagement that we have had in the days running up to it as well. We know how child sexual exploitation and abuse offenders sadly exploit private channels, and the great danger that this poses, and we know how crucial these channels are for secure communication. That is why, where necessary and proportionate, and where all the safeguards are met, it is right that Ofcom can require companies to take all technically feasible measures to remove this vile and illegal content.
The government amendments in this group will go further to ensure that a notice is well informed and targeted and does not unduly restrict users’ rights. Privacy and safety are not mutually exclusive—we can and must have both. The safety of our children depends on it.
I make it clear again that the Bill does not require companies to break or weaken end-to-end encryption on their services. Ofcom can require the use of technology  on an end-to-end encrypted service only when it is technically feasible and has been assessed as meeting minimum standards of accuracy. When deciding whether to issue a notice, Ofcom will engage in continual dialogue with the company and identify reasonable, technically feasible solutions to the issues identified. As I said in opening, it is right that we require technology companies to use their considerable resources and expertise to develop the best possible protections to keep children safe in encrypted environments. They are well placed to innovate to find solutions that protect both the privacy of users and the safety of children.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Just to be clear, am I right to understand my noble friend as saying that there is currently no technology that would be technically acceptable for tech companies to do what is being asked of them? Did he say that tech companies should be looking to develop the technology to do what may be required of them but that it is not currently available to them?

Lord Moylan: For clarification, if the answer to that is that the technology does not exist—which I believe is correct, although there are various snake oil salespeople out there claiming that it does, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said—my noble friend seems to be saying that the providers and services should develop it. This seems rather circular, as the Bill says that they must adopt an approved technology, which suggests a technology that has been imposed on them. What if they cannot and still get such a notice? Is it possible that these powers will never be capable of being used, especially if they do not co-operate?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: To answer my noble friend Lady Stowell first, it depends on the type of service. It is difficult to give a short answer that covers the range of services that we want to ensure are covered here, but we are seeking to keep this and all other parts of the Bill technology neutral so that, as services develop, technology changes and criminals, unfortunately, seek to exploit that, technology companies can continue to innovate to keep children safe while protecting the privacy of their users. That is a long-winded answer to my noble friend’s short question, but necessarily so. Ofcom will need to make its assessments on a case- by-case basis and can require a company to use its best endeavours to innovate if no effective and accurate technology is currently available.
While I am directing my remarks towards my noble friend, I will also answer a question she raised earlier on general monitoring. General monitoring is not a legally defined concept in UK law; it is a term in European Union law that refers to the generalised monitoring of user activity online, although its parameters are not clearly defined. The use of automated technologies is already fundamental to how many companies protect their users from the most abhorrent harms, including child sexual abuse. It is therefore important that we empower Ofcom to require the use of such technology where it is necessary and proportionate and ensure that the use of these tools is transparent and properly regulated, with clear and appropriate safeguards in place for users’ rights. The UK’s existing intermediary liability regime remains in place.
Amendment 255 from my noble friend Lord Moylan seeks to prevent Ofcom imposing any requirement in a notice that would weaken or remove end-to-end encryption. He is right that end-to-end encryption should not be weakened or removed. The powers in the Bill will not do that. These powers are underpinned by proportionality and technical feasibility; if it is not proportionate or technically feasible for companies to identify child sexual exploitation abuse content on their platform while upholding users’ right to privacy, Ofcom cannot require it.
I agree with my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that encryption is a very important and popular feature today. However, with technology evolving at a rapid rate, we cannot accept amendments that would risk this legislation quickly becoming out of date. Naming encryption in the Bill would risk that happening. We firmly believe that the best approach is to focus on strong safeguards for upholding users’ rights and ensuring that measures are proportionate to the specific situation, rather than on general features such as encryption.
The Bill already requires Ofcom to consider the risk that technology could result in a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy and whether any alternative measures would significantly reduce the amount of illegal content on a service. As I have said in previous debates, Ofcom is also bound by the Human Rights Act not to act inconsistently with users’ rights.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: Will the Minister write to noble Lords who have been here in Committee and on Report in response to the fact that it is not just encryption companies saying that the demands of this clause will lead to the breaching of encryption, even though the Minister and the Government keep saying that it will not? As I have indicated, a wide range of scientists and technologists are saying that, whatever is said, demanding that Ofcom insists that technology notices are used in this way will inadvertently lead to the breaking of encryption. It would be useful if the Government at least explained scientifically and technologically why those experts are wrong and they are right.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am very happy to put in writing what I have said from the Dispatch Box. The noble Baroness may find that it is the same, but I will happily set it out in further detail.
I should make it clear that the Bill does not permit law enforcement agencies to access information held on platforms, including access to private channels. The National Crime Agency will be responsible for receiving reports from in-scope services via secure transmission, processing these reports and, where appropriate, disseminating them to other UK law enforcement bodies and our international counterparts. The National Crime Agency will process only information provided to it by the company; where it determines that the content is child sexual abuse content and meets the threshold for criminality, it can request further information from the company using existing powers.
I am glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Moylan does not intend to divide on his amendment. The restrictions it sets out are not ones we should impose on the Bill.
Amendments 256, 257 and 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, require a notice to be approved by a judicial commissioner appointed under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and remove Ofcom’s power to require companies to make best endeavours to develop or source new technology to address child sexual exploitation and abuse content.
The Investigatory Powers Act and this Bill are very different regimes which should not be conflated. The Investigatory Powers Act comprehensively sets out the powers of public bodies, including the UK’s intelligence agencies and police, to access communications and content data, and establishes safeguards and restrictions for that. This Bill, by contrast, is a risk-based regime requiring companies to take responsibility for the harms facilitated by their own services. The powers in Clause 111 can require a company to tackle the huge volume of child sexual exploitation and abuse that is, sadly, manifested on private channels. This does not supplement or overlap with the roles or powers of the security services or the police, which are provided for by the Investigatory Powers Act.
It is right that these two regimes are overseen by two different, independent regulators. It would not be appropriate for the judicial commissioners to oversee Ofcom’s work. More importantly, it is not necessary: the Bill already contains robust safeguards requiring Ofcom to consider large quantities of information to allow for evidence-based decision-making. The government amendments in this group, which I have spoken to, further strengthen those safeguards.
In removing the “best endeavours” power, the noble Lord’s amendments would significantly reduce the capacity for a notice to be flexible and pragmatic. The power allows Ofcom to require companies to innovate and design practical, proportionate solutions that are compatible with their own service. Without this power, Ofcom could be left with the choice of requiring the use of incompatible and ineffective technologies, or doing nothing and allowing child abuse material to continue to proliferate on a service. Removing this power would not be in anyone’s interest.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, which seek to introduce a public consultation before Ofcom issues a notice, and a review of notices by the Information Commissioner’s Office. I recognise that the aim of Amendment 258 is to provide transparency, but it will not always be appropriate for Ofcom to share the details of a notice with a public audience. There is a high risk that its content and context could be exploited by criminals and used to further illegal activities online. We agree, however, that Ofcom must be as transparent as possible in carrying out its functions. That is why Ofcom must report on its use of Clause 111 powers in an annual report. That will ensure that key facts about Ofcom’s decisions are placed in the public domain. In addition, Ofcom is required by the Communications Act, when carrying out its functions, to have regard to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent and accountable.
On Amendment 258ZA, on which the noble Lord said he may test the opinion of your Lordships’ House, while he is right to emphasise the expertise of the Information Commissioner’s Office, I hope will not seek to divide, because the requirement in his amendment is duplicative. I agree with him that it is important that Ofcom and the ICO work closely together. Ofcom is required to consult the ICO before producing guidance on how it will use its Clause 111 powers, and it may consult the Information Commissioner’s Office before issuing a notice, where necessary—for example, if a company has made representations about a proposed requirement.
Ofcom cannot take any action which breaches data protection and privacy legislation, nor can it require services to do so. That is already set out both in the Bill and in existing regulations. Should services wish a notice to be reviewed, the Bill already provides robust routes of appeal under Clause 151 via the Upper Tribunal, which will consider whether the regulator’s decisions have been made lawfully.
I will touch on the question raised by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe—

Lord Allan of Hallam: I appreciate the tone of the Minister’s comments very much, but they are not entirely reassuring me. There is a debate going on out there: there are people saying, “We’ve got these fabulous technologies that we would like Ofcom to order companies to install” and there are companies saying, “That would be disastrous and break encryption if we had to install them”. That is a dualistic situation where there is a contest going on. My amendment seeks to make sure the conflict can be properly resolved. I do not think Ofcom on its own can ever do that, because Ofcom will always be defending what it is doing and saying “This is fine”. So, there has to be some other mechanism whereby people can say it is not fine and contest that. As I say, in this debate we are ignoring the fact that they are already out there: people saying “We think you should deploy this” and companies saying “It would be disastrous if we did”. We cannot resolve that by just saying “Trust Ofcom”.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: To meet the expectation the noble Lord voiced earlier, I will indeed point out that Ofcom can consult the ICO as a skilled person if it wishes to. It is important that we square the circle and look at these issues. The ICO will be able to be involved in the way I have set out as a skilled person.
Before I conclude, I want to address my noble friend Lady Harding’s questions on skilled persons. Given that notices will be issued on a case-by-case basis, and Ofcom will need to look at specific service design and existing systems of a provider to work out how a particular technology would interact with that design system, a skilled person’s report better fits this process by requiring Ofcom to obtain tailored advice rather than general technical advice from an advisory board. The skilled person’s report will be largely focused on the technical side of Ofcom’s assessment: that is to say, how the technology would interact with the service’s design and existing systems. In this way, it offers  something similar to but more tailored than a technical advisory board. Ofcom already has a large and expert technology group, whose role it is to advice policy teams on new and existing technologies, to anticipate the impact of technologies and so on. It already has strong links with academia and with external researchers. A technical advisory board would duplicate that function. I hope that reassures my noble friend that the points she raised have been taken into account.
So I hope the noble Lord, Lord Allan, will not feel the need to divide—

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: Before the Minister finishes, I posed the question about whether, given the debate and issues raised, he felt completely satisfied that we had arrived at the right solution, and whether there was a case for withdrawing the amendment at this stage and bringing it back at Third Reading, having had further discussions and debate where we could all agree. I take it his answer is “no”.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am afraid it is “no”, and if the noble Lord, Lord Allan, does seek to divide, we will oppose his amendment. I commend the amendments standing in my name in this group to the House.
Amendment 250B agreed.

Amendments 250C to 251

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
250C: Clause 94, page 86, line 34, leave out paragraph (c)Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111. It omits words in Clause 94 (skilled person’s reports) because that new Clause now requires OFCOM to obtain a skilled person’s report before giving a provider a notice under Clause 111.
250D: Clause 94, page 86, line 41, at end insert—“(2A) Section (Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report) requires OFCOM to exercise the power in subsection (3) for the purpose of assisting OFCOM in connection with a notice under section 111(1).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111. It inserts a signpost in Clause 94 (skilled persons’ reports).
251: Clause 94, page 87, line 39, at end insert—“(iiia) section (Assessment duties: user empowerment) (assessments related to the adult user empowerment duty set out in section 12(2));”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that OFCOM are able to require a skilled person’s report about a failure or possible failure to comply with the new duties to carry out assessments (see the new Clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name).
Amendments 250C to 251 agreed.

Amendment 252

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
252: Clause 94, page 88, line 2, at end insert—“(xiia) section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users) (deceased child users);”  Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment has the effect that OFCOM may require a skilled person’s report in relation to compliance with the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Amendment 252 agreed.

  
Schedule 12: OFCOM’s powers of entry, inspection and audit

Amendments 252A to 252G

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
252A: Schedule 12, page 228, line 4, at end insert—“(4A) The power to observe the carrying on of the regulated service at the premises includes the power to view, using equipment or a device on the premises, information generated in real time by the performance of a test or demonstration required by a notice given under paragraph 3.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that during an inspection of a service, OFCOM have the power to observe a test or demonstration of which notice has been given.
252B: Schedule 12, page 228, line 7, leave out from “paragraph” to “is” in line 9 and insert “only so far as”Member’s explanatory statementThis is a technical amendment consequential on the preceding amendment in my name.
252C: Schedule 12, page 228, line 15, leave out “or relevant documents to be produced,” and insert “relevant documents to be produced, or a relevant test or demonstration to be performed,”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment, and the next two amendments in my name, concern OFCOM giving advance notice to a provider that they will want to observe a test or demonstration during an inspection.
252D: Schedule 12, page 228, line 19, leave out “documents are “relevant” if they are” and insert “a document, test or demonstration is “relevant” if it is”Member’s explanatory statementSee the explanatory statement to the preceding amendment in my name.
252E: Schedule 12, page 228, line 23, leave out “or the documents to be produced,” and insert “the documents to be produced, or the test or demonstration to be performed,”Member’s explanatory statementSee the explanatory statement to the preceding amendment in my name.
252F: Schedule 12, page 229, line 3, at end insert—“(da) to assist an authorised person to view, using equipment or a device on the premises, information demonstrating in real time the operation of systems, processes or features of a specified description, including functionalities or algorithms of a specified description;“(db) to assist an authorised person to view, using equipment or a device on the premises, information generated in real time by the performance of a test or demonstration of a specified description;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that the powers of OFCOM during an audit of a service extend to using equipment on the premises to view real time information showing the operation of the service or the performance of a test or demonstration, if specified in advance in the audit notice.
252G: Schedule 12, page 233, line 38, leave out paragraph (ii)  Member’s explanatory statementThis is a drafting change removing a redundant paragraph from the Bill.
Amendments 252A to 252G agreed.
Amendment 253 not moved.

  
Clause 105: Disclosure of information

Amendment 254

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
254: Clause 105, page 94, line 33, at end insert—“(3A) In subsection (3), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a person appointed under—(i) paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or(ii) section 2 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 15 (N.I.));(hb) the procurator fiscal, within the meaning of the enactment mentioned in subsection (5)(s);”.(3B) In subsection (5)—(a) before paragraph (d) insert—“(ca) the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;”,(b) after paragraph (na) insert—“(nb) Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009;”, and(c) after paragraph (r) insert—“(s) the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 2).”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that it is not necessary for OFCOM to obtain the consent of providers of internet services before disclosing information to a coroner or, in Scotland, procurator fiscal, who is investigating a person’s death.
Amendment 254 agreed.

  
Clause 107: Provision of information to the Secretary of State

Amendments 254A and 254B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
254A: Clause 107, page 95, line 20, leave out “(2)” and insert “(3)”Member’s explanatory statementThis is a technical drafting change needed because section 24B of the Communications Act 2003 has been amended after this Bill was introduced.
254B: Clause 107, page 95, leave out line 21 and insert—(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to information—”Member’s explanatory statementThis is a technical drafting change needed because section 24B of the Communications Act 2003 has been amended after this Bill was introduced.
Amendments 254A and 254B agreed.

  
Clause 111: Notices to deal with terrorism content or CSEA content (or both)
  

Amendment 255 not moved.

Amendment 255A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
255A: Clause 111, page 98, line 8, at end insert—“(za) section (Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report), which requires OFCOM to obtain a skilled person’s report before giving a notice under subsection (1),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111. It inserts a signpost to the requirement in that new Clause to obtain a skilled person’s report before giving a provider a notice under Clause 111.
Amendment 255A agreed.
Amendment 256 not moved.

Amendment 256A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
256A: After Clause 111, insert the following new Clause—“Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report(1) OFCOM may give a notice under section 111(1) to a provider only after obtaining a report from a skilled person appointed by OFCOM under section 94(3).(2) The purpose of the report is to assist OFCOM in deciding whether to give a notice under section 111(1), and to advise about the requirements that might be imposed by such a notice if it were to be given.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires OFCOM to obtain a skilled person’s report under Clause 94 before giving a notice to a provider under Clause 111.
Amendment 256A agreed.
Amendment 257 not moved.

  
Clause 112: Warning notices

Amendments 257A and 257B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
257A: Clause 112, page 98, line 24, at end insert—“(za) contain a summary of the report obtained by OFCOM under section (Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires a warning notice given to a provider to contain a summary of the skilled person’s report obtained by OFCOM under the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111.
257B: Clause 112, page 98, line 37, at end insert—“(za) contain a summary of the report obtained by OFCOM under section (Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires a warning notice given to a provider to contain a summary of the skilled person’s report obtained by OFCOM under the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111.
Amendments 257A and 257B agreed.

  
Clause 113: Matters relevant to a decision to give a notice under section 111(1)

Amendments 257C to 257F

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
257C: Clause 113, page 99, line 32, at end insert—  “(ga) the contents of the skilled person’s report obtained as required by section (Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report);”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires OFCOM to consider the contents of the skilled person’s report obtained as required by the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111, as part of OFCOM’s decision about whether it is necessary and proportionate to give a notice to a provider under Clause 111.
257D: Clause 113, page 99, line 40, at end insert—“(ia) in the case of a notice relating to a user-to-user service (or to the user-to-user part of a combined service), the extent to which the use of the specified technology would or might—(i) have an adverse impact on the availability of journalistic content on the service, or(ii) result in a breach of the confidentiality of journalistic sources;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires OFCOM to consider the impact of the use of technology on the availability of journalistic content and the protection of journalistic sources, as part of OFCOM’s decision about whether it is necessary and proportionate to give a notice to a provider under Clause 111.
257E: Clause 113, page 100, line 4, after “(i)” insert “, (ia)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the preceding amendment of this Clause in my name.
257F: Clause 113, page 100, line 5, at end insert—““journalistic content” has the meaning given by section 15;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment adds a definition of journalistic content to Clause 113.
Amendments 257C to 257F agreed.

  
Clause 114: Notices under section 111(1): supplementary
  

Amendment 258 not moved.

Amendment 258ZA

Lord Allan of Hallam: Moved by Lord Allan of Hallam
258ZA: After Clause 114, insert the following new Clause—“Review by the Information Commissioner of notices under Section 111(1)(1) Where a provider believes that a notice it has been given under section 111(1) will have a material impact on the private communications of its users, it may request a review by the Information Commissioner.(2) The review must consider the compatibility of the notice with—(a) the Human Rights Act 1998,(b) the Data Protection Act 2018,(c) the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, and(d) any other legislation the Information Commissioner considers relevant.(3) In carrying out the review, the Information Commissioner must consult—(a) OFCOM,(b) the provider,(c) UK users of the provider’s service, and  (d) such other persons as the Information Commissioner considers appropriate.(4) Following a review under subsection (1) the Information Commissioner must publish a report including—(a) their determination of the compatibility of the notice with relevant legislation,(b) their reasons for making such a determination, and(c) their advice to OFCOM in respect of the drafting and implementation of the notice.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would give providers a right to request an assessment by the ICO of the compatibility of a section 111 order with UK privacy legislation.

Lord Allan of Hallam: I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 70, Noes 178.

Amendment 258ZA disagreed.

  
Clause 115: Review and further notice under section 111(1)

Amendment 258A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
258A: Clause 115, page 102, line 24, leave out “Section 112 (warning notices) does” and insert “Sections (Requirement to obtain skilled person’s report)(skilled person’s report) and 112 (warning notices) do”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that, if OFCOM propose to issue a further notice under Clause 111, it is not necessary to obtain a further skilled person’s report under the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 111.
Amendment 258A agreed.

  
Clause 118: Interpretation of this Chapter
  

Amendment 259 not moved.

  
Clause 120: Requirements enforceable by OFCOM against providers of regulated services

Amendments 260 and 261

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
260: Page 105, line 4, at end insert—“Section (Assessment duties: user empowerment)Assessments related to duty in section 12(2)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that OFCOM are able to use their enforcement powers in Chapter 6 of Part 7 in relation to a breach of any of the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name.
261: Page 105, line 28, at end insert—“Section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users)Information about use of service by deceased child users”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that OFCOM are able to use their enforcement powers in Chapter 6 of Part 7 in relation to a breach of any of the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Amendments 260 and 261 agreed.

  
Clause 122: Confirmation decisions: requirements to take steps

Amendment 262

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
262: Clause 122, page 107, line 7, leave out “for constraints on” and insert “in relation to”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendments of Clause 125 in my name.
Amendment 262 agreed.

Amendment 262A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
262A: Clause 122, page 107, line 17, at end insert—“(ba) specify which of those requirements (if any) have been designated as CSEA requirements (see subsections (5A) and (5B)),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the next amendment to this Clause in my name.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, in moving Amendment 262A, I will speak also to the other government amendments in the group. These amendments address the Bill’s enforcement powers. Government Amendments 262A, 262B, 262C, 264A and 266A, Amendments 265, 266 and 267, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bethell, and Amendment 268 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, relate to senior management liability. Amendment 268C from the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, addresses interim service restriction orders.
In Committee, we amended the Bill to create an offence of non-compliance with steps set out in confirmation decisions that relate to specific children’s online safety duties, to ensure that providers and individuals can be held to account where their non-compliance risks serious harm to children. Since then, we have listened to concerns raised by noble Lords and others, in particular that the confirmation decision offence would not tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse. That is why the government amendments in this group will create a new offence of a failure to comply with a child sexual exploitation and abuse requirement imposed by a confirmation decision. This will mean that providers and senior managers can be held liable if they fail to comply with requirements to take specific steps as set out in Ofcom’s confirmation decision in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse on their service.
Ofcom must designate a step in a confirmation decision as a child sexual exploitation and abuse requirement, where that step relates, whether or not exclusively, to a failure to comply with specific safety duties in respect of child sexual exploitation and abuse content. Failure to comply with such a requirement will be an offence. This approach is necessary, given that steps may relate to multiple or specific kinds of illegal content, or systems and process failures more generally. This approach will ensure that services know from the confirmation decision when they risk criminal liability, while providing sufficient legal certainty via the specified steps to ensure that the offence can be prosecuted effectively.
The penalty for this offence is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. Through Clause 182, where an offence is committed with the consent or connivance of a senior manager, or attributable to his or her neglect, the senior manager, as well as the entity, will have committed the offence and can face up to two years in prison, a fine or both.
I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell, as well as our honourable friends Miriam Cates and Sir William Cash in another place, for their important work in raising this issue and their collaborative approach as  we have worked to strengthen the Bill in this area. I am glad that we have reached a position that will help to keep children safe online and drive a change in culture in technology companies. I hope this amendment reassures them and noble Lords that the confirmation decision offence will tackle harms to children effectively by ensuring that technology executives take the necessary steps to keep children safe online. I beg to move.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, I will briefly comment positively on the Minister’s explanation of how these offences might work, particularly the association of the liability with the failure to enforce a confirmation decision, which seems entirely sensible. In an earlier stage of the debate, there was a sense that we might associate liability with more general failures to enforce a duty of care. That would have been problematic, because the duty of care is very broad and requires a lot of pieces to be put in place. Associating the offences with the confirmation decision makes absolute sense. Having been in that position, if, as an executive in a tech company, I received a confirmation decision that said, “You must do these things”, and I chose wilfully to ignore that decision, it would be entirely reasonable for me to be held potentially criminally liable for that. That association is a good step forward.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 268C, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has been so proactive in this area. The amendment seeks to clarify the threshold for Ofcom to take immediate enforcement action when children are exposed to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and pornographic materials. It would require the regulator to either take that action or at least provide an explanation to the Secretary of State within a reasonable timeframe as to why it has chosen not to.
When we pass the Bill, the public will judge it not simply on its contents but on its implementation, its enforcement and the speed of that enforcement. Regulatory regimes as a whole work only if the companies providing the material believe the regulator to be sufficiently muscular in its approach. Therefore, the test is not simply what is there but how long it will take for a notice, whenever it is issued, to lead to direct change.
I will give two scenarios to illustrate the point. Let us take the example of a video encouraging the so-called blackout challenge, or choking challenge, which went viral on social media about two years ago. For those who are unaware, it challenged children to choke themselves to the point at which they lost consciousness and to see how long they could do that. This resulted in the death of about 15 children. If a similar situation arises and a video is not removed because it is not against the terms and conditions of the service, does Ofcom allow the video to circulate for a period of, say, six months while giving a grace period for the platform to introduce age gating? What if the platform fails to implement that highly effective age verification? How long will it take to get through warnings, a provisional notice of contravention, a representation period, a confirmation decision and the implementation of required measures before the site is finally blocked? As I indicated, this is not hypothetical; it draws from a real-life example.  We know that this is not simply a matter of direct harm to children; it can lead to a risk of death, and has done in the past.
What about, for example, a pornographic site that simply has a banner where a person can self-declare that they are over 18 in order to access it? I will not rehearse, since they have been gone through a number of times, the dangers for children of early exposure to violent pornography and the impact that will have on respectful relationships, as we know from government reports, and particularly the risk it creates of viewing women as sex objects. It risks additional sexual aggression towards women and perpetuates that aggression. Given that we are aware that large numbers of children have access to this material, surely it would be irresponsible to sacrifice another generation of children to a three-year implementation process.
I am sure the Minister will seek to give the assurance that Ofcom does indeed have the power under Clause 138 to act immediately by applying the interim service restrictions when the nature and severity of the content demands. We welcome that change, which has been put into the Bill, and the power contained within it.
What we are seeking to probe is the fact that, while the Bill provides that power, by its nature it does not provide a great deal of guidance to Ofcom and the courts on when they should consider that the threshold for interim disruption measures has been reached. Both the scenarios I have mentioned involve what the Bill designates as primary priority harms to children—that is, the most severe harms. The Bill now requires highly effective age verification or age estimation for such content precisely because we cannot allow any such risks.
Any breach risks severe consequences. Will the Minister confirm that any likely failure to comply with the duties in Clauses 11(3)(a) and 72(2) would reach the threshold of severity for Ofcom to apply for an immediate interim service restriction order rather than awaiting the conclusion of the normal processes? If the answer to that question is yes, as I hope it is, Ofcom should consider applying for an order in such circumstances. I therefore ask the Minister whether he would consider making that clear in the Bill or giving other assurances as to how that will be implemented. Furthermore, applications will have to be assessed through the courts applying the same criteria. When these things are brought before the courts, there is always a danger of them being subject to additional review or indeed an inconsistent approach, so it is important that we give the greatest amount of guidance we can through the legislation itself.
There is a clear public expectation that we will tackle these issues. Again, we are not dealing with hypothetical or unprecedented situations. We should look at what has happened in other jurisdictions. In July 2020, France introduced powers for its regulator, Arcom, to apply for blocking orders against relevant ISPs if age verification is not implemented within 15 days of notification. Similar legislation being considered in the Canadian Parliament gives 20 days. By contrast, there is a bit of a gap in the Bill because we have not set a clear timetable on expected compliance.
I stress that nothing in the amendment seeks to undermine the discretion and operational independence of Ofcom. There will be times when the regulator is best placed to understand the situation and act accordingly—perhaps there has been a technical failure—but it is important that Ofcom be held accountable for the decisions it makes on enforcement, so that it needs either to act or to explain why it is not acting. That is what the second paragraph of the amendment seeks to do. It states that when Ofcom chooses not to apply interim orders when it is likely that after 14 days platforms are still allowing children to access primary priority content or pornographic content, it must provide written justification to the Secretary of State within a further period of seven days. So it does not require Ofcom to act but requires it at least to provide a justification for its decision.
Although we have reason to hope that Ofcom will act more swiftly under the Online Safety Bill, we are trying to judge this on the basis of previous experience. There is disappointment at times across the House at the slow progress in enforcing the video-sharing platform regime. It is nearly three years since that regime was introduced but we have still not seen the outcome of a single investigation against a platform. Greater communication and clarity throughout the process would go a huge way towards rebuilding that trust. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I seek the assurances that lie at the heart of the amendment. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I want to say “Hallelujah”. With this Bill, we have reached a landmark moment after the disappointments and obstacles that we have had over the last six years. It has been a marathon but we are now in the final straight with the finishing line in sight, after the extraordinary efforts by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to this ground-breaking Bill, and the Minister and his officials for the effort they have put into it. The Minister is one of my “Play School” babies, who has done his utmost to make a difference in changing the online world. That makes me very happy.
We know that the eyes of the world are watching us because legislators around the world are looking for ways to extend the rule of law into the online world, which has become the Wild West of the 21st century, so it is critical that in our haste to reach the finishing post we do not neglect the question of enforcement. That is why I have put my name to Amendment 268C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weir: without ensuring that Ofcom is given effective powers for this task of unprecedented scale, the Bill we are passing may yet become a paper tiger.
The impact assessment for the Bill estimated that 25,000 websites would be in scope. Only last week, in an encouraging report by the National Audit Office on Ofcom’s readiness, we learned that the regulator’s own research has increased that estimate to 100,000, and the figure could be significantly higher. The report went on to point out that the great majority of those websites will be based overseas and will not have been regulated by Ofcom before.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised his concerns on the final day of Committee, seeking to amend the Bill to make it clear that Ofcom could take a schedule of a thousand sites to court and get them all blocked in one go. I was reassured when the Minister repeated the undertaking given by his counterpart in Committee in the other place that the Civil Procedure Rules already allow such multiparty claims. Will the Minister clarify once again that such enforcement at scale is possible and would not expose Ofcom to judicial review? That would give me peace of mind.
The question that remains for many is whether Ofcom will act promptly enough when children are at risk. I am being cautious because my experience in this area with regulators has led me not to assume that simply because this Parliament passes a law, it will be implemented. We all know the sorry tale of the Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, when Ministers took it upon themselves not to decide when it should come into force, but to ask whether it should at all. When they announced that that should be never, the High Court took a dim view and allowed judicial review to proceed. Interestingly, the repeal of Part 3 and the clauses that replaced it may not have featured in this Bill were it not for that case—I always say that everything always happens for a reason. The amendment is a reminder to Ofcom that Parliament expects it to act, and to do so from the day when the law comes into force, not after a year’s grace period, six months or more of monitoring or a similar period of supervision before it contemplates any form of enforcement.
Many of the sites we are dealing with will not comply because this is the law; they will do so only when the business case makes compliance cheaper than the consequences of non-compliance, so this amendment is a gentle but necessary provision. If for any reason Ofcom does not think that exposing a significant number of children in this country to suicide, health harm, eating disorder or pornographic content—which is a universal plague—merits action, it will need to write a letter to the Secretary of State explaining why.
We have come too far to risk the Bill not being implemented in the most robust way, so I hope my noble friends will join me in supporting this belt-and-braces amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, we welcome the government amendments in this group to bring child sexual exploitation and abuse failures into the scope of the senior manager liability and enforcement regime but consider that they do not go far enough. On the government amendments, I have a question for the Minister about whether, through Clause 122, it would be possible to require a company that was subject to action to do some media literacy as part of its harm reduction; in other words, would it be possible for Ofcom to use its media literacy powers as part of the enforcement process? I offer that as a helpful suggestion.
We share the concerns expressed previously by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, about the scope of the senior manager liability regime, which does not cover all the child safety duties in the Bill. We consider that Amendment 268, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, would provide greater flexibility, giving the possibility  of expanding the list of duties covered in the future. I have a couple of brief questions to add to my first question. Will the Minister comment on how the operation of the senior manager liability regime will be kept under review? This has, of course, been something of a contentious issue in the other place, so could the Minister perhaps tell your Lordships’ House how confident he is that the current position is supported there? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I did not quite finish writing down the noble Baroness’s questions. I will do my best to answer them, but I may need to follow up in writing because she asked a number at the end, which is perfectly reasonable. On her question about whether confirmation decision steps could include media literacy, yes, that is a good idea; they could.
Amendment 268, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, seeks to enable the Secretary of State, through regulation, to add to the list of duties which are linked to the confirmation decision offence. We are very concerned at the prospect of allowing an unconstrained expansion of the confirmation decision offence. In particular, as I have already set out, we would be concerned about expansion of those related to search services. There is also concern about unconstrained additions of any other duties related to user-to-user services as well.
We have chosen specific duties which will tackle effectively key issues related to child safety online and tackling child abuse while ensuring that the confirmation decision offence remains targeted. Non-compliance with a requirement imposed by a confirmation decision in relation to such duties warrants the prospect of criminal enforcement on top of Ofcom’s extensive civil enforcement powers. Making excessive changes to the offence risks shifting the regime towards a more punitive and disproportionate enforcement model, which would represent a significant change to the framework as a whole. Furthermore, expansion of the confirmation decision offence could lead to services taking an excessively cautious approach to content moderation to avoid the prospect of criminal liability. We are also concerned that such excessive expansion could significantly increase the burden on Ofcom.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for the way they set out their Amendment 268C. We are concerned about this proposal because it is important that Ofcom can respond to issues on a case-by-case basis: it may not always be appropriate or proportionate to use a specific enforcement power in response to a suspected breach. Interim service restriction orders are some of the strongest enforcement powers in the Bill and will have a significant impact on the service in question. Their use may be disproportionate in cases where there is only a minor breach, or where a service is taking steps to deal with a breach following a provisional notice of contravention.
In contrast to applications for service restriction orders which require that there is a continuing failure to comply with an enforceable duty, interim service  restriction orders require only that it is likely that there is a failure. This provision is included so that steps can be taken quickly where the level of risk of harm to people relating to the likely failure, and the nature and severity of that harm, are such that it would not be appropriate to wait to establish the failure before applying for the order. While the duties specified by Amendment 268C are important, putting pressure on Ofcom pre-emptively to take a specific course of enforcement action which is aimed at addressing only particularly urgent, high-risk scenarios would be counter to the intention of the rest of the framework; that is, to enable an efficient, proportionate and targeted approach.
It is important that Ofcom takes proportionate steps. Section 11(3)(a) is a duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to prevent children of any age encountering, by means of the service, primary priority content that is harmful to them. As such, the prospective failure in relation to the duty may be to do with a particular aspect of the systems and processes that are in place. While these are important, a particular failure in relation to the systems and processes-focused duty might not necessarily warrant the drastic action of an interim court order requiring ancillary services providers to withdraw their services from a potentially non-compliant regulated service.
We are concerned that removing a proportionality ground for the court application for an interim service restriction order and requiring Ofcom to justify its decision not to apply for an interim disruption order to the Secretary of State would, in effect, pressure Ofcom to take an excessively punitive course of action. Likewise, in some cases it may be highly irregular for there to be an expectation that Ofcom would have to justify its decision not to apply for an interim disruption order in each particular case to the Secretary of State, but I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, again that business disruption measures will be able to operate effectively at scale and at sufficient speed. I hope that that provides enough reassurance to her and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that they are willing to not move their amendment, but I am grateful for the support they voiced, as did others, for the government amendments in this group.
Amendment 262A agreed.
Amendment 262AA not moved.

Amendments 262B and 262C

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
262B: Clause 122, page 107, line 35, at end insert—“(5A) If the condition in subsection (5B) is met in relation to a requirement imposed by a confirmation decision which is of a kind described in subsection (1), OFCOM must designate the requirement as a “CSEA requirement” for the purposes of section 127(2A) (offence of failure to comply with confirmation decision).(5B) The condition referred to in subsection (5A) is that the requirement is imposed (whether or not exclusively) in relation to either or both of the following—(a) a failure to comply with section 9(2)(a) or (3)(a) in respect of CSEA content, or in respect of priority illegal content which includes CSEA content;  (b) a failure to comply with section 9(2)(b) in respect of an offence specified in Schedule 6 (CSEA offences), or in respect of priority offences which include such an offence.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that where a confirmation decision imposes a requirement to take steps in relation to a failure to comply with a duty under Clause 9(2)(a), (2)(b) or (3)(a) in respect of CSEA content or an offence under Schedule 6, OFCOM must designate the requirement as a CSEA requirement with the result that failure to comply with it is an offence (see the amendment inserting subsection (2A) into Clause 127 in my name).
262C: Clause 122, page 107, line 44, at end insert—““CSEA content”, “priority illegal content” and “priority offence” have the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 53);”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the preceding amendment to this Clause in my name.
Amendments 262B and 262C agreed.

  
Clause 125: Confirmation decisions: proactive technology

Amendments 263 and 264

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
263: Clause 125, page 109, line 27, leave out “constraints on OFCOM’s power” and insert “what powers OFCOM have”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the next amendment in my name.
264: Clause 125, page 109, line 30, at end insert—“(1A) A proactive technology requirement may be imposed in a confirmation decision if—(a) the decision is given to the provider of an internet service within section 71(2), and(b) the decision is imposed for the purpose of complying with, or remedying the failure to comply with, the duty set out in section 72(2) (provider pornographic content).(1B) The following provisions of this section set out constraints on OFCOM’s power to include a proactive technology requirement in a confirmation decision in any case not within subsection (1A).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment has the effect that OFCOM may, in a confirmation decision, require a provider to use proactive technology if the purpose is to deal with non-compliance with Clause 72(2) (preventing children encountering provider pornographic content).
Amendments 263 and 264 agreed.

  
Clause 127: Confirmation decisions: offence

Amendment 264A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
264A: Clause 127, page 112, line 22, leave out “relates (whether or not exclusively) to” and insert “is imposed (whether or not exclusively) in relation to a failure to comply with”Member’s explanatory statementThis is a technical amendment which adjusts the language of this provision.
Amendment 264A agreed.
Amendments 265 and 266 not moved.

Amendment 266A

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
266A: Clause 127, page 112, line 27, at end insert—“(2A) A person to whom a confirmation decision is given commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with a CSEA requirement imposed by the decision (see section 122 (5A) and (5B)).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that a person commits an offence if the person fails to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a CSEA requirement imposed by a confirmation decision given to the person (see the amendment inserting new subsections (5A) and (5B) into Clause 122 in my name.)
Amendment 266A agreed.
Amendments 267 and 268 not moved.

  
Schedule 13: Penalties imposed by OFCOM under Chapter 6 of Part 7

Amendments 268A and 268B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
268A: Schedule 13, page 236, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert—“(9) Regulations made by OFCOM under section (Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc)(1)(a)(including regulations making provision of a kind mentioned in section (Regulations by OFCOM about qualifying worldwide revenue etc)(3), (4) or (5)) apply for the purpose of determining the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service for an accounting period as mentioned in this paragraph as they apply for the purpose of determining the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service for a qualifying period for the purposes of Part 6.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that regulations under the new Clause 76 proposed in my name about “qualifying worldwide revenue” for the purposes of Part 6 of the Bill (fees) also applies for the purposes of financial penalties under paragraph 4 of Schedule 13.
268B: Schedule 13, page 237, line 18, at end insert—“(9) OFCOM may by regulations make provision about how the qualifying worldwide revenue of a group of entities is to be determined for the purposes of this paragraph.(10) Before making regulations under sub-paragraph (9) OFCOM must consult—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Treasury, and(c) such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate.(11) Regulations under sub-paragraph (9) may make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as OFCOM consider appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides a power for OFCOM to make regulations setting out what is meant in paragraph 5 of Schedule 13 by references to the qualifying worldwide revenue of a group of entities.
Amendments 268A and 268B agreed.

  
Clause 134: Interim service restriction orders
  

Amendment 268C not moved.
Amendment 269 not moved.

  
Clause 141: Advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation
  

Amendments 269A and 269AA not moved.

Amendment 269B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
269B: Clause 141, page 128, line 19, leave out “duty” and insert “duties”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 149 in my name expanding OFCOM’s duties to promote media literacy in relation to regulated user-to-user and search services.
Amendment 269B agreed.
Amendments 269C and 269D not moved.

  
Clause 143: Research about users’ experiences of regulated services
  

Amendment 270 not moved.

Amendment 270A

Lord Knight of Weymouth: Moved by Lord Knight of Weymouth
270A: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—“Establishment of the Advocacy Body for Children(1) There is to be a body corporate (“the Advocacy Body for Children”) to represent the interests of child users of regulated services.(2) A “child user”—(a) means any person aged 17 years or under who uses or is likely to use regulated internet services, and(b) includes both any existing child user and any future child user.(3) The functions of the Advocacy Body for Children must include, in relation to regulated services—(a) representing the interests of child users;(b) the protection and promotion of those interests;(c) monitoring implications of this Act’s implementation for those interests;(d) consideration of children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including (but not limited to) their participation rights;(e) any other matter connected with those interests.(4) The “interests of child users” means the interests of children in relation to the discharge by any regulated company of its duties under this Act, including—(a) safety duties about illegal content, in particular CSEA content,(b) safety duties protecting children,(c) children’s access assessment duties, and(d) other enforceable requirements relating to children.  (5) The Advocacy Body for Children must—(a) have due regard to the interests of child users that display one or more protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010,(b) assess emerging threats to child users of regulated services and bring information regarding those threats to OFCOM, and(c) publish an annual report related to the interests of child users.(6) The Advocacy Body for Children may undertake research on its own account.(7) The Advocacy Body for Children is to be defined as a statutory consultee for OFCOM’s regulatory decisions which impact upon the interests of children.(8) To establish the Advocacy Body for Children, OFCOM must—(a) appoint an organisation or organisations known to represent all children in the United Kingdom to be designated with the functions under this section, or(b) create an organisation to carry out the designated functions.(9) The governance functions of the Advocacy Body for Children must—(a) with the exception of the approval of its budget, remain independent of OFCOM, and(b) include representation of child users by young people under the age of 25 years.(10) The budget of the Advocacy Body for Children will be subject to annual approval by the board of OFCOM.(11) The Secretary of State must give directions to OFCOM as to how it should recover the costs relating to the expenses of the Advocacy Body for Children, or the Secretary of State in relation to the establishment of the Advocacy Body, through the provisions to require a provider of a regulated service to pay a fee (as set out in section 75).”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause would require Ofcom to establish a new advocacy body for child users of regulated internet services to represent, protect and promote their interests.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names to Amendment 270A, and to the NSPCC for its assistance in tabling this amendment and helping me to think about it.
The Online Safety Bill has the ambition, as we have heard many times, of making the UK the safest place for a child to be online. Yet, as drafted, it could pass into legislation without a system to ensure that children’s voices themselves can be heard. This is a huge gap. Children are experts in their own lives, with a first-hand understanding of the risks that they face online. It is by speaking to, and hearing from, children directly that we can best understand the harms they face online—what needs to change and how the regulation is working in practice.
User advocates are commonplace in most regulated environments and are proven to be effective. Leading children’s charities such as 5Rights, Barnardo’s and YoungMinds, as well as organisations set up by bereaved parents campaigning for child safety online, such as the Molly Rose Foundation and the Breck Foundation, have joined the NSPCC in calling for the introduction of this advocacy body for children, as set out in the amendment.
I do not wish to detain anyone. The Minister’s response when this was raised in Committee was, in essence, that this should go to the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to her for tracking me down in a Pret A Manger in Russell Square on Monday and having a chat. She reasonably pointed out that much of the amendment reads a bit like her job description, but she also could see that it is desirable to have an organisation such as the NSPCC set up a UK-wide helpline. There are children’s commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are supportive of a national advocacy body for children. She was suggesting —if the Minister agrees that this seems like a good solution—that they could commission a national helpline that works across the United Kingdom, and then advises a group that she could convene, including the children’s commissioners from the other nations of the United Kingdom. If that seems a good solution to the Minister, I do not need to press the amendment, we are all happy and we can get on with the next group. I beg to move.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, I just want to make some brief comments in support of the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is aiming at in this amendment.
The Bill is going to have a profound impact on children in the United Kingdom. We hope that the most profound impact will be that it will significantly advance their interests in terms of safety online. But it will also potentially have a significant impact on what they can access online and the functionality of different services. They are going to experience new forms of age assurance, about which they may have very strong views. For example, the use of their biometric data to estimate their age will be there to protect them, but they may still have strong views about that.
I have said many times that there may be some measures in the Bill that will encourage services to become 18-plus only. That is not adult in the sense of adult content. Ordinary user-to-user social media services may look at the obligations and say, “Frankly, we would much rather restrict ourselves to users from the UK who identify as being 18-plus, rather than have to take on board all the associated liabilities in respect of children”—not because they are irresponsible, but precisely because they are responsible, and they can see that there is a lot of work to do in order to be legally and safely available to those under 18. For all those reasons, it is really important that the child advocacy body looks at things such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the rights of children to access information, and that it is able to take a view on them.
The reason I think that is important—as will any politician who has been out and spoken in schools—is that very often children are surprising in terms of what they see as their priorities. We make assumptions about their priorities, which can often be entirely wrong. There has been some really good work done on this. There was a project called EU Kids Online, back in the days of the EU, which used to look at children right across the European Union and ask them what their experience of being online was like and what was important to them. There are groups such as Childnet  International, which for years has been convening groups of children and taking them to places such as the Internet Governance Forum. That always generates a lot of information that we here would not have thought of, about what children feel is really important to them about their online experience.
For all those reasons, it really would be helpful to institutionalise this in the new regime as some kind of body that looks in the round at children’s interests—their interests to stay safe, but also their interests to be able to access a wide variety of online services and to use the internet as they want to use it. I hope that that strengthens the case the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has made for such a body to exist in some kind of coalition-like format.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I am afraid that I have some reservations about this amendment. I was trying not to, but I have. The way that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, explained the importance of listening to young people is essential—in general, not being dictated to by them, but to understand the particular ways that they live their lives; the lived experience, to use the jargon. Particularly in relation to a Bill that spends its whole time saying it is designed to protect young people from harm, it might be worth having a word with them and seeing what they say. I mean in an ongoing way—I am not being glib. That seems very sensible.
I suppose my concern is that this becomes a quango. We have to ask who is on it, whether it becomes just another NGO of some kind. I am always concerned about these kinds of organisations when they speak “on behalf of”. If you have an advocacy body for children that says, “We speak on behalf of children”, that makes me very anxious. You can see that that can be a politically very powerful role, because it seems to have the authority of representing the young, whereas actually it can be entirely fictitious and certainly not democratic or accountable.
The key thing we discussed in Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, is very keen on—and I am too—is that we do not inadvertently deny young people important access rights to the internet in our attempt to protect them. That is why some of these points are here. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was very keen on that. She wants to protect them but does not want to end up with them being denied access to important parts of the internet. That is all good, but I just think this body is wrong.
The only other thing to draw noble Lords’ attention to—I am not trying to be controversial, but it is worth noting—is that child advocacy is currently in a very toxic state because of some of the issues around who represents children. As we speak, there is a debate about, for example, whether the NSPCC has been captured by Stonewall. I make no comment because I do not know; I am just noting it. We have had situations where a child advocacy group such as Mermaids is now discredited because it is seen to have been promoting chest binders for young people, to have gone down the gender ideology route, which some people would argue is child abuse of a sort, advocating that young women remove their breasts—have double mastectomies. This is all online, by the way.
I know that some people would say, “Oh, you’re always going on about that”, but I raise it because it is a very real and current discussion. I know a lot of people who work in education, with young people or in children’s rights organisations, and they keep telling me that they are tearing themselves apart. I just wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Knight, might note that there is a danger of walking into a minefield here—which I know he does not mean to walk into—by setting up an organisation that could end up being the subject of major culture wars rows or, even worse, one of those dreaded quangos that pretends it is representing people but does not.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I think the upshot of this brief debate is that the noble Lord, Lord Knight —how he was tracked down in a Pret A Manger, I have no idea; he is normally too fast-moving for that—in his usual constructive and creative way is asking the Government to constructively engage to find a solution, which he discussed in that Pret A Manger, involving a national helpline, the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner, for the very reasons that he and my noble friend Lord Allan have put forward. In no way would this be some of kind of quango, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
This is really important stuff. It could be quite a game-changer in the way that the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner collaborate on tackling the issues around social media, the impact of the new rights under the Bill and so on. I very much hope that the Government will be able to engage positively on this and help to bring the parties together to, in a sense, deliver something which is not in the Bill but could be of huge importance.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, first, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to making sure that the interests of children are both represented and protected. We believe, however, that this is already achieved through the provisions in the Bill.
Rather than creating a single advocacy body to research harms to children and advocate on their behalf, as the noble Lord’s amendment suggests, the Bill achieves the same effect through a combination of Ofcom’s research functions, the consultation requirements and the super-complaints provisions. Ofcom will be fully resourced with the capacity and technological ability to assess and understand emerging harms and will be required to research children’s experiences online on an ongoing basis.
For the first time, there will be a statutory body in place charged with protecting children from harm online. As well as its enforcement functions, Ofcom’s research will ensure that the framework remains up to date and that Ofcom itself has the latest, in-depth information to aid its decision-making. This will ensure that new harms are not just identified in retrospect when children are already affected by them and complaints are made; instead, the regulator will be looking out for new issues and working proactively to understand concerns as they develop.
Children’s perspectives will play a central role in the development of the framework, as Ofcom will build on its strong track record of qualitative research to ensure that children are directly engaged. For example, Ofcom’s ongoing programme, Children’s Media Lives, involves engaging closely with children and tracking their views and experiences year on year.
Alongside its own research functions, super-complaints will ensure that eligible bodies can make complaints on systemic issues, keeping the regulator up to date with issues as they emerge. This means that if Ofcom does not identify a systemic issue affecting children for any reason, it can be raised and then dealt with appropriately. Ofcom will be required to respond to the super-complaint, ensuring that its subsequent decisions are understood and can be scrutinised. Complaints by users will also play a vital role in Ofcom’s horizon scanning and information gathering, providing a key means by which new issues can be raised.
The extensive requirements for Ofcom to consult on codes of practice and guidance will further ensure that it consistently engages with groups focused on the interests of children as the codes and guidance are developed and revised. Children’s interests are embedded in the implementation and delivery of this framework.
The Children’s Commissioner will play a key and ongoing role. She will be consulted on codes of practice and any further changes to those codes. The Government are confident that she will use her statutory duties and powers effectively to understand children’s experiences of the digital world. Her primary function as Children’s Commissioner for England is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England and to promote and protect the rights of children across the United Kingdom where those rights are or may be affected by reserved matters. As the codes of practice and the wider Bill relate to a reserved area of law—namely, internet services—the Children’s Commissioner for England will be able to represent the interests of children from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when she is consulted on the preparation of codes of practice. That will ensure that children’s voices are represented right across the UK. The Children’s Commissioner for England and her office also regularly speak to the other commissioners about ongoing work on devolved and reserved matters. Whether she does that in branches of Pret A Manger, I do not know, but she certainly works with her counterparts across the UK.
I am very happy to take back the idea that the noble Lord has raised and discuss it with the commissioner. There are many means by which she can carry out her duties, so I am very happy to take that forward. I cannot necessarily commit to putting it in legislation, but I shall certainly commit to discussing it with her. On the proposals in the noble Lord’s amendment, we are concerned that a separate child user advocacy body would duplicate the functions that she already has, so I hope with that commitment he will be happy to withdraw.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this quick debate and for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about  children’s voices being heard. I think that we are getting to the point when there will not be a quango or indeed a minefield, so that makes us all happy. The Minister almost derailed me, because so much of his speaking note was about the interests of children and I am more interested in the voice of children being heard directly rather than people acting on their behalf and representing their interests, but his final comments around being happy to take the idea forward means that I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 270A withdrawn.

Amendment 271

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
271: After Clause 145, insert the following new Clause—“OFCOM’s reports about use of age assurance(1) OFCOM must produce and publish a report assessing—(a) how providers of regulated services have used age assurance for the purpose of compliance with their duties set out in this Act,(b) how effective the use of age assurance has been for that purpose, and(c) whether there are factors that have prevented or hindered the effective use of age assurance, or a particular kind of age assurance, for that purpose,(and in this section, references to a report are to a report described in this subsection).(2) A report must, in particular, consider whether the following have prevented or hindered the effective use of age assurance—(a) the costs to providers of using it, and(b) the need to protect users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant to the use or operation of a regulated service (including, but not limited to, any such provision or rule concerning the processing of personal data).(3) Unless the Secretary of State requires the production of a further report (see subsection (6)), the requirement in subsection (1) is met by producing and publishing one report within the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which sections 11 and 72(2) come into force (or if those provisions come into force on different days, the period of 18 months beginning with the later of those days).(4) In preparing a report, OFCOM must consult—(a) the Information Commissioner, and(b) such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate.(5) OFCOM must send a copy of a report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.(6) The Secretary of State may require OFCOM to produce and publish a further report in response to—(a) the development of age assurance technology, or(b) evidence of the reduced effectiveness of such technology.(7) But such a requirement may not be imposed—(a) within the period of three years beginning with the date on which the first report is published, or(b) more frequently than once every three years.(8) For further provision about reports under this section, see section 149.(9) In this section “age assurance” means age verification or age estimation.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause requires OFCOM to produce and publish a report about the use of age assurance by providers of regulated services.
Amendment 271 agreed.

  
Clause 147: OFCOM’s transparency reports
  

Amendment 272 not moved.

Amendments 272A and 272AA

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
272A: After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—“OFCOM’s report about use of app stores by children(1) OFCOM must produce a report about the use of app stores by children.(2) In particular, the report must—(a) assess what role app stores play in children encountering content that is harmful to children, search content that is harmful to children or regulated provider pornographic content by means of regulated apps which the app stores make available,(b) assess the extent to which age assurance is currently used by providers of app stores, and how effective it is, and(c) explore whether children’s online safety would be better protected by the greater use of age assurance or particular kinds of age assurance by such providers, or by other measures.(3) OFCOM must publish the report during the period beginning two years, and ending three years, after the day on which sections 11 and 25 come into force (or if those sections come into force on different days, the later of those days).(4) For further provision about the report under this section, see section 149.(5) In this section—“app” includes an app for use on any kind of device, and “app store” is to be read accordingly;“content that is harmful to children” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 54);“regulated app” means an app for a regulated service;“regulated provider pornographic content” has the same meaning as in Part 5 (see section 70);“search content” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 51).(6) In this section references to children are to children in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires OFCOM to produce a report about the use of app stores by children, including consideration of whether children would be better protected by greater use of age assurance.
272AA: After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—“OFCOM’s report about reporting and complaints procedures(1) OFCOM must produce a report assessing the measures taken or in use by providers of Part 3 services to enable users and others to—(a) report particular kinds of content present on such services, and(b) make complaints to providers of such services.(2) OFCOM’s report must take into account the experiences of users and others in reporting content and making complaints to providers of Part 3 services, including—(a) how clear the procedures are for reporting content and making complaints,(b) how easy it is to do those things, and(c) whether providers are taking appropriate and timely action in response to reports and complaints that are made.  (3) The report must include advice from OFCOM about whether they consider that the Secretary of State should make regulations under section (Power to impose duty about alternative dispute resolution procedure)(duty about alternative dispute resolution procedure).(4) In the report, OFCOM may make recommendations that they consider would improve the experiences of users and others in reporting content or making complaints to providers of Part 3 services, or would deliver better outcomes in relation to reports or complaints that are made.(5) In preparing the report under this section, OFCOM must consult—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) persons who appear to OFCOM to represent the interests of United Kingdom users of Part 3 services,(c) persons who appear to OFCOM to represent the interests of children (generally or with particular reference to online safety matters),(d) the Information Commissioner, and(e) such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate.(6) The report may draw on OFCOM’s research under section 14 of the Communications Act (see subsection (6B) of that section).(7) The report is not required to address any matters which are the subject of a report by OFCOM under section 146 (report about the availability and treatment of news publisher content and journalistic content).(8) OFCOM must publish the report within the period of two years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.(9) OFCOM must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.(10) The Secretary of State must publish a statement responding to the report within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the report is published, and the statement must include a response to OFCOM’s advice about whether to make regulations under section (Power to impose duty about alternative dispute resolution procedure).(11) The statement must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who may be affected by it.(12) For further provision about the report under this section, see section 149.(13) References in this section to “users and others” are to United Kingdom users and individuals in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires OFCOM to produce a report about the content reporting and complaints procedures used by providers of Part 3 services, including user experiences of those procedures. OFCOM must specifically advise whether they consider that regulations ought to be made under the new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name after Clause 194 (duty about alternative dispute resolution procedure).
Amendments 272A and 272AA agreed.

  
Clause 148: OFCOM’s report about researchers’ access to information
  

Amendment 272AB not moved.

Amendment 272B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
272B: Clause 148, page 132, line 11, leave out “two years” and insert “18 months”   Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that the report that OFCOM must publish under Clause 148 (report about researchers’ access to information) must be published within 18 months of Clause 148 coming into force (rather than two years).
Amendment 272B agreed.
Amendment 272BA not moved

Amendments 272C and 272D

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
272C: Clause 148, page 132, line 16, leave out “Following the publication of the report, OFCOM may” and insert “OFCOM must”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that OFCOM must (rather than may) produce guidance about matters dealt with by the report published under Clause 148.
272D: Clause 148, page 132, line 19, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—“(8) Before producing the guidance (including revised guidance) OFCOM must consult the persons mentioned in subsection (3).(9) OFCOM must publish the guidance (and any revised guidance).(10) OFCOM must include in each transparency report under section 147 an assessment of the effectiveness of the guidance.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name making the production of guidance under Clause 148(7) mandatory.
Amendments 272C and 272D agreed.
Amendment 272E not moved.

Amendment 273

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
273: After Clause 148, insert the following new Clause—“OFCOM’s report in connection with investigation into a death(1) Subsection (2) applies if OFCOM receive—(a) a notice from a senior coroner under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in connection with an investigation into the death of a person;(b) a request for information in connection with the investigation of a procurator fiscal into, or an inquiry held or to be held in relation to, the death of a person;(c) a notice from a coroner under section 17A(2) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 15 (N.I.)) in connection with—(i) an investigation to determine whether an inquest into the death of a person is necessary, or(ii) an inquest in relation to the death of a person.(2) OFCOM may produce a report for use by the coroner or procurator fiscal, dealing with any matters that they consider may be relevant.(3) In subsection (1)(b) “inquiry” means an inquiry held, or to be held, under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 2).”  Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that OFCOM may produce a report in connection with a person’s death, if the coroner gives OFCOM a notice or, in Scotland, the procurator fiscal requests information, for that purpose.
Amendment 273 agreed.
Amendments 273A and 273B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

  
Clause 149: OFCOM'S reports

Amendments 274 to 274AA

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
274: Clause 149, page 132, line 41, at end insert—“(aa) a report under section (OFCOM’s reports about use of age assurance) (report about use of age assurance),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause to be inserted after Clause 145 in my name. It ensures that the usual confidentiality provisions apply to matters contained in OFCOM’s report about the use of age assurance.
274A: Clause 149, page 133, line 1, at end insert—“(ca) a report under section (OFCOM’s report about use of app stores by children) (report about use of app stores by children),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 147 in my name. It ensures that the usual confidentiality provisions apply to matters contained in OFCOM’s report about the use of app stores by children.
274AA: Clause 149, page 133, line 1, at end insert—“(ca) a report under section (OFCOM’s report about reporting and complaints procedures) (report about reporting and complaints procedures),”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 147 in my name about OFCOM’s report concerning reporting and complaints procedures used by providers of Part 3 services. The amendment ensures that the usual confidentiality provisions apply to matters contained in that report.
Amendments 274 to 274AA agreed.

Amendment 274B

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
274B: After Clause 149, insert the following new Clause—“CHAPTER 8MEDIA LITERACYMedia literacy(1) Section 11 of the Communications Act is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) Before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) In this section—(a) subsection (1) imposes duties on OFCOM which apply in relation to material published by means of the electronic media (including by means of regulated services), and(b) subsections (1A) to (1E) expand on those duties, and impose further duties on OFCOM, in relation to regulated services only.”(3) After subsection (1) insert—  “(1A) OFCOM must take such steps, and enter into such arrangements, as they consider most likely to be effective in heightening the public’s awareness and understanding of ways in which they can protect themselves and others when using regulated services, in particular by helping them to—(a) understand the nature and impact of harmful content and the harmful ways in which regulated services may be used, especially content and activity disproportionately affecting particular groups, including women and girls;(b) reduce their and others’ exposure to harmful content and to the use of regulated services in harmful ways, especially content and activity disproportionately affecting particular groups, including women and girls;(c) use or apply—(i) features included in a regulated service, including features mentioned in section 12(2) of the Online Safety Act 2023, and(ii) tools or apps, including tools such as browser extensions,so as to mitigate the harms mentioned in paragraph (b);(d) establish the reliability, accuracy and authenticity of content;(e) understand the nature and impact of disinformation and misinformation, and reduce their and others’ exposure to it;(f) understand how their personal information may be protected.(1B) OFCOM must take such steps, and enter into such arrangements, as they consider most likely to encourage the development and use of technologies and systems for supporting users of regulated services to protect themselves and others as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (1A), including technologies and systems which—(a) provide further context to users about content they encounter;(b) help users to identify, and provide further context about, content of democratic importance present on regulated user-to-user services;(c) signpost users to resources, tools or information raising awareness about how to use regulated services so as to mitigate the harms mentioned in subsection (1A)(b).(1C) OFCOM’s duty under subsection (1A) is to be performed in the following ways (among others)—(a) pursuing activities and initiatives,(b) commissioning others to pursue activities and initiatives,(c) taking steps designed to encourage others to pursue activities and initiatives, and(d) making arrangements for the carrying out of research (see section 14(6)(a)).(1D) OFCOM must draw up, and from time to time review and revise, a statement recommending ways in which others, including providers of regulated services, might develop, pursue and evaluate activities or initiatives relevant to media literacy in relation to regulated services.(1E) OFCOM must publish the statement and any revised statement in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by it.”(4) After subsection (2) insert—  “(3) In this section and in section 11A,“regulated service” means—(a) a regulated user-to-user service, or(b) a regulated search service.“Regulated user-to-user service” and “regulated search service” have the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 3 of that Act).(4) In this section—(a) “content”, in relation to regulated services, means regulated user-generated content, search content or fraudulent advertisements;(b) the following terms have the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023—“content of democratic importance” (see section 13 of that Act);“fraudulent advertisement” (see sections 33 and 34 of that Act);“harm” (see section 209 of that Act) (and “harmful” is to be interpreted consistently with that section);“provider”(see section 202 of that Act);“regulated user-generated content” (see section 49 of that Act);“search content” (see section 51 of that Act).”(5) In the heading, for “Duty” substitute “Duties”.(6) In section 14 of the Communications Act (consumer research), in subsection (6)(a), after “11(1)” insert “, (1A) and (1B)”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment inserts provisions into section 11 of the Communications Act 2003 (OFCOM’s duties to promote media literacy). The new provisions expand on the existing duties so far as they relate to regulated user-to-user and search services, and impose new duties on OFCOM aimed at enhancing users’ media literacy.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I beg to move Amendment 274B.
Amendments 274BA and 274BB (to Amendment 274B) not moved.
Amendment 274B agreed.

Amendment 274C

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
274C: After Clause 149, insert the following new Clause—“Media literacy strategy and media literacy statementAfter section 11 of the Communications Act insert—“11A Regulated services: media literacy strategy and media literacy statement(1) OFCOM must prepare and publish a media literacy strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Online Safety Act 2023 is passed.(2) A media literacy strategy is a plan setting out how OFCOM propose to exercise their functions under section 11 in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.(3) In particular, a media literacy strategy must state OFCOM’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.(4) Before the end of the period covered by a media literacy strategy, OFCOM must prepare and publish a media literacy strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.  (5) In preparing or revising a media literacy strategy, OFCOM must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.(6) OFCOM’s annual report must contain a media literacy statement.(7) A media literacy statement is a statement by OFCOM—(a) summarising what they have done in the financial year to which the report relates in the exercise of their functions under section 11, and(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in their media literacy strategy in that year.(8) A media literacy statement must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by OFCOM in the exercise of their functions under section 11 in the financial year to which the report relates.(9) The first annual report that is required to contain a media literacy statement is the report for the financial year during which OFCOM’s first media literacy strategy is published, and that first statement is to relate to the period from publication day until the end of that financial year.(10) But if OFCOM’s first media literacy strategy is published during the second half of a financial year—(a) the first annual report that is required to contain a media literacy statement is the report for the next financial year, and(b) that first statement is to relate to the period from publication day until the end of that financial year.(11) References in this section to OFCOM’s functions under section 11 are to those functions so far as they relate to regulated services.(12) In this section—“annual report” means OFCOM’s annual report under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002;“financial year” means a year ending with 31 March.””Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment requires OFCOM to produce a media literacy strategy every three years (or more frequently), and to include, in their annual report, a statement summarising and evaluating their media literacy activities, so far as they relate to regulated services, during the year.
Amendment 274C agreed.
Amendments 275 and 275A not moved.

  
Clause 202: “Provider” of internet service

Amendment 276

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
276: Clause 202, page 171, line 2, at end insert—“(15) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (9), a person who makes available on a service an automated tool or algorithm by means of which content is generated is to be regarded as having control over content so generated.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is about who counts as the provider of a service (other than a user-to-user or search service) that hosts provider pornographic content for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment makes it clear that a person who controls a generative tool on the service, such as a generative AI bot, is regarded as controlling the content generated by that tool.
Amendment 276 agreed.

Amendment 277

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
277: After Clause 205, insert the following new Clause—““Age verification” and “age estimation”(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Act.(2) “Age verification” means any measure designed to verify the exact age of users of a regulated service.(3) “Age estimation” means any measure designed to estimate the age or age- range of users of a regulated service.(4) A measure which requires a user to self-declare their age (without more) is not to be regarded as age verification or age estimation.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new Clause defines age verification and age estimation, and makes it clear that mere self-declaration of age does not count as either.
Amendment 277 agreed.

  
Clause 206: “Proactive technology”

Amendments 278 to 280

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
278: Clause 206, page 172, line 34, leave out “assessing or establishing” and insert “verifying or estimating”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is made to ensure consistency of language in the Bill when referring to age verification and age estimation.
279: Clause 206, page 173, line 11, at end insert—“(c) in relation to an internet service within section 71(2), content that is provider pornographic content in relation to the service.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is about what counts as “relevant content” for the purposes of defining “proactive technology” for the purposes of the Bill. The effect is for provider pornographic content to now be included.
280: Clause 206, page 173, line 15, leave out “Part 3” and insert “regulated”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment revises the definition of “user data” for the purposes of defining “proactive technology” for the purposes of the Bill. The effect is for user data to now include data created etc by providers of all services regulated by the Bill (including providers subject to the Part 5 pornography duties).
Amendments 278 to 280 agreed.

  
Clause 208: “Functionality”
  

Amendments 281 to 281B not moved.

Amendment 281BA

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: Moved by Baroness Harding of Winscombe
281BA: Clause 208, page 175, line 5, at end insert—“(3A) In this Act “functionality”, in relation to a regulated service, includes the design of systems and processes that engage or impact on users, particularly algorithms.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment clarifies the role that system design can impact on outcomes on users in light of the requirement for systems to be safe by design.

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is no longer in his place, but I promise to still try to live by his admonition to all of us to speak briefly.
I will speak to Amendments 281BA, 281FA, 286A and 281F, which has already been debated but is central to this issue. These amendments aim to fix a problem we repeatedly raised in Committee and on Report. They are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and build on amendments in Committee laid by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Bethell and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. This issue has broad support across the whole House.
The problem these amendments seek to solve is that, while the Government have consistently asserted that this is a systems and processes Bill, the Bill is constructed in a manner that focuses on content. Because this is a rerun of previous debates, I will try to keep my remarks short, but I want to be clear about why this is a real issue.
I am expecting my noble friend the Minister to say, as he has done before, that this is all covered; we are just seeing shadows, we are reading the Bill wrong and the harms that we are most concerned about are genuinely in the Bill. But I really struggle to understand why, if they are in the Bill, stating them clearly on the face of the Bill creates the legal uncertainty that seems to be the Government’s favourite problem with each of the amendments we have been raising today.
My noble friend—sorry, my friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, commissioned a legal opinion that looked at the statements from the Government and compared it to the text in the Bill. That opinion, like that of the many noble Lords I have just mentioned, is that the current language in the Bill about features and functionalities only pertains as far as it relates to harmful content. All roads in this game of Mornington Crescent lead back to content.
Harmful content is set out in a schedule to the Bill, and this set of amendments ensures that the design of services, irrespective of content, is required to be safe by design. If the Government were correct in their assertion that this is already covered, then these amendments really should not pose any threat at all, and I have yet to hear the Government enunciate what the real legal uncertainty actually is in stating that harm can come from functionality, not just from content.
Secondly, I think that, in the process of this Report stage, we may have risked making the Bill worse, not better, by creating a real confusion. At the front of the Bill, the new purposive Clause 1 sets out really clearly that regulated companies have to be safe by design. But when you actually work your way through the Bill, unfortunately, at each point in the Bill, we only then refer back to content; we do not refer back to the functionality that can in and of itself be harmful. There is no reference to functionality in the risk assessments, the child safety duties, or the definitions of harm—no reference to the systems and processes that may in themselves be designed well or badly, irrespective of content.
I note that both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on our last day of Report, made reference to the work of Professor Bowden-Jones, which included the spectre of children so addicted to reward loops of games and other media that they needed to attend a gambling or gaming clinic, including the spectre of a child who left their house in the dead of night to access wifi from a random hotspot when their desperate parents had switched off the home wifi.
As we have said several times before, it is not an accident that these platforms do this; it is a direct result of their business models to encourage dwell time, which in turn drives addiction, irrespective of content. It is very well established by psychiatrists, many of whom have already been quoted, including for example Dr Norman Doidge, a pre-eminent Canadian psychiatrist, that the plasticity of the brain in the developing teenager makes them particularly susceptible to this sort of addiction. Once caught in that loop as a teenager, it stays with them for life. So this is a very real and present risk to today’s teenagers, to —unfortunately—the last decade’s teenagers and to all teenagers as we look ahead. It is why, together with my co-signatories, we felt that we had to continue to keep pressing this.
Thirdly, both in Committee and on Report, we kept asking the Government to be more mindful of the future. This morning, I am sure like many other noble Lords, I woke up to the dulcet tones of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talking about Meta’s overnight announcement about their large language model. I fear that it would be extraordinary hubris to keep insisting that content on its own is going to be the defining harm that our children face going forward. We simply do not know, and it is so important that we leave open the possibility for functionality that we cannot even imagine today to be launched tomorrow, let alone in five or 10 years.
It is a huge mistake to not make sure that this Bill captures non-content harm and functionality irrespective of any form of content. Because of the lateness of the hour and the urgency of catching trains to get home before the train strike, I will not go through what each of the amendments do, save to say that they introduce specific elements in the back half of the Bill to ensure that non-content harm is captured. We are in a bit of a mess in this Bill, because the front half of the Bill now does include non-content harms, in both Amendment 35 and Amendment 240. So we do need to make sure that in the end we produce a Bill that is internally consistent and genuinely captures the purpose set out in the new Clause 1 all the way through the Bill.
I would like to ask my noble friend a couple of questions. First: what is the legal uncertainty that I am fully expecting him to set out that he is so worried about, and is the reason why he cannot accept the amendments? There is a charitable interpretation, which is that we are all worried about creating legal uncertainty. My co-signatories and I are worried about the legal uncertainty we are creating by not naming functionality as harm. If I am being charitable, I think the Government are worried—and this is what I do not understand—that by naming these non-contact harms, we somehow create a new loophole that would enable a platform to continue to cause harm and Ofcom not to be able to regulate. I hope we are united in trying to stop that,  and if so, I really hope that my noble friend can offer an explanation. This is not for the want of us having had many conversations about this, and we may need to have many more. I hope that that charitable interpretation is right: that we are all trying to do the same thing but we do not really understand how this complex Bill works.
There is, unfortunately, a less charitable interpretation, which would lead one to worry that the Bill is actually just about content. I ask my noble friend to confirm that this is not just a content Bill. One of the things that most scared me was Ofcom’s insistence in front of the Communications and Digital Select Committee last week that, if the amendments were allowed, it would create a huge amount of additional work for it. I note that the Government have been briefing that today: that the amendments would lead to substantial delay because of the extra work Ofcom would need to do. That makes me worried that Ofcom has not properly thought about the consequences of non-content harm—harm generated by functionality—if it really will take it so long. That is the much less charitable interpretation of why I am expecting my noble friend to reject the amendments. I should like to understand those two questions: what is really the legal uncertainty that the Government are worried about; and why, if this is all covered, would it take so long?
I am channelling my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, here, but this is such an important part of protecting our children that if it really is going to take some extra months to prepare to do it properly, we should be willing to do that. We have a few months ahead of us over the summer holidays, and we know that Ofcom has done a brilliant job in getting ahead of the legislation. If the problem is simply that there might be some extra work—provided that really is the reason, rather than the Government not wanting it to be anything other than a content Bill—we should accept that it will take a bit of time. I should like to understand the answer to that.
It is late, and it has been a long Report stage. I will listen very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I really hope that the Bill can continue to progress in this collaborative way. It would be an awful shame if, at the end of a long Report stage, we did not recognise that we are trying to solve the same problem and find a way through. I beg to move.

Baroness Morgan of Cotes: My Lords, the hour is late and I will not detain the House for long. However, I hope that the fact that we are all still sitting here at the end of a long Report stage, because we care very much about the Bill and what we are trying to achieve, will be noted by my noble friend the Minister, his officials and others who are watching. I thank my noble friend Lady Harding for so ably introducing the amendments, which I absolutely support. I was, perhaps for the first time, going to agree with something the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said a day or so ago: that one thing we and Ofcom need to do much better is to understand the transparency of the algorithms. It is not just algorithms—this is where my knowledge ends—but other design features that make these sites addictive and harmful, and which are outside content. The Bill  will not be capable of addressing even the next five years, let alone beyond that, if we do not reflect the fact that, as my noble friend Lady Harding said, it has already been amended so that one way its objectives are to be achieved is by services being required to focus on safety by design.
I hope very much that my noble friend will take up the invitation, because everybody is tired and has been looking at this Bill for so many hours and months that we are probably all word-blind. We could all do with standing back and thinking, “With the amendments made, how does it all hang together so that ultimately, we keep those we want to keep safe as safe as we possibly can?” On that basis, I support these amendments and look forward to hearing further from the Government about how they hope to keep safe those we all wish to keep safe.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. She has been such a forceful voice throughout the passage of this Bill, driven by her passion to protect children, and no more so than with the amendment in her name. That is why I feel compelled to speak up to support her. So far, we have all worked with the Government to see the safe passage of the Online Safety Bill, with strong protections for children. These amendments would be yet another excellent and unique opportunity to protect children. This is what we have been fighting for for years, and it is so uplifting that the Government have listened to us throughout the passage of this Bill—so why stop now? If the Government are saying that the Bill is being clear about harms, they should have no objection to making it explicit.
These amendments press for safety by design to be embedded in later clauses of the Bill and go hand in hand with the earlier amendment that the House so clearly supported. It is clear that the design of services and algorithms is responsible for orchestrating and manipulating the behaviour, feelings, emotions and thoughts of children who, because they are at a vulnerable stage in their development, are easily influenced. We have all witnessed the disastrous impact of the new technology which is fast encroaching upon us, and our children will not be spared from it. So it is imperative that Ofcom have the tools with which to consider and interrogate system design separately from content because, as has been said, it is not only content that is harmful: design is too. We therefore need to take a holistic approach and leave nowhere to hide for the tech companies when it comes to harms affecting our children.
As I have said before, these amendments would send a loud and clear message to the industry that it is responsible for the design of its products and has to think of the consequences for our children’s mental health and well-being when considering design. What better way to do that than for the Government to accept these amendments, in order to show that they are on the side of our children, not the global tech companies, when it comes to protecting them from harm? They need to put measures in place to ensure that the way a service is designed is subject to the online safety regime we have all fought for over the years and during the passage of this Bill.
If the Government do not accept the amendment, perhaps the issue of harmful design could be included in the welcome proposed review of pornography. It would be good to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this idea—but I am not giving him a let-off. I hope he will listen to the strength of feeling and that the Government will reconsider their position, support the amendment and complete the one main task they set out to complete with this Bill, which is to protect children from harm no matter where it rears its ugly head online.

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Harding and to associate myself with everything she has just said. It strikes me that if we do not acknowledge that there is harm from functionality, not just content, we are not looking to the future, because functionality protects vulnerable people before the harm has happened; content relies on us having to take it down afterwards. I want to stress that algorithms and functionality disproportionately harm not just vulnerable children but vulnerable adults as well. I do not understand why, since we agreed to safety by design at the beginning of the Bill, it is not running throughout it, rather than just in the introduction. I want to lend my support these amendments this evening.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I can be very brief. My noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding, Lady Morgan and Lady Fraser, have all very eloquently described why these amendments in this group are needed.
It is ironic that we are still having this debate right at the end of Report. It has been a running theme throughout the passage of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, and of course it ran right through our Joint Committee work. It is the whole question of safety by design, harm from functionalities and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, understanding the operation of the algorithm. And there is still the question: does the Bill adequately cover what we are trying to achieve?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, Clause 1 now does set out the requirement for safety by design. So, in the spirit of amity, I suggested to the Minister that he might run a check on the Bill during his free time over the next few weeks to make sure that it really does cover it. But, in a sense, there is a serious point here. Before Third Reading there is a real opportunity to run a slide rule over the Bill to see whether the present wording really is fit for purpose. So many of us around this House who have lived and breathed this Bill do not believe that it yet is. The exhortation by the ethereal presences of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, to keep pressing to make sure that the Bill is future-proofed and contains the right ingredients is absolutely right.
I very much hope that once again the Minister will go through the hoops and explain whether this Bill really captures functionality and design and not just content, and whether it adequately covers the points set out in the purpose of the Bill which is now there.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, as we have heard, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made a very clear case in support of these amendments, tabled in  the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and supported by noble Lords from across the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, gave wise counsel to the Minister, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is worth stepping back and seeing where we are in order to ensure that the Bill is in the right place. I urge the Minister to find the time and the energy that I know he has—he certainly has the energy and I am sure he will match it with the time—to speak to noble Lords over the coming Recess to agree a way to incorporate systems and functionality into the Bill, for all the reasons we have heard.
On Monday, my noble friend Lord Knight spoke of the need for a review about loot boxes and video games. When we checked Hansard, we saw the Minister had promised that such a review would be offered in the coming months. In an unusual turn of events, the Minister exceeded the timescale. We did not have to hear the words “shortly”, “in the summer” or “spring” or anything like that, because it was announced the very next day that the department would keep legislative options under review.
I make that point simply to thank the Minister for the immediate response to my noble friend Lord Knight. But, if we are to have such a review, does this not point very much to the fact that functionality and systems should be included in the Bill? The Minister has a very nice hook to hang this on and I hope that he will do so.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, this is not just a content Bill. The Government have always been clear that the way in which a service is designed and operated, including its features and functionalities, can have a significant impact on the risk of harm to a user. That is why the Bill already explicitly requires providers to ensure their services are safe by design and to address the risks that arise from features and functionalities.
The Government have recognised the concerns which noble Lords have voiced throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, and those which predated the scrutiny of it. We have tabled a number of amendments to make it even more explicit that these elements are covered by the Bill. We have tabled the new introductory Clause 1, which makes it clear that duties on providers are aimed at ensuring that services are safe by design. It also highlights that obligations on services extend to the design and operation of the service. These obligations ensure that the consideration of risks associated with the business model of a service is a fundamental aspect of the Bill.
My noble friend Baroness Harding of Winscombe worried that we had made the Bill worse by adding this. The new clause was a collaborative one, which we have inserted while the Bill has been before your Lordships’ House. Let me reassure her and other noble Lords as we conclude Report that we have not made it worse by so doing. The Bill will require services to take a safety by design approach to the design and operation of their services. We have always been clear that this will be crucial to compliance with the legislation. The new introductory Clause 1 makes this explicit as an overarching objective of the Bill. The introductory clause does not introduce any new  concepts; it is an accurate summary of the key provisions and objectives of the Bill and, to that end, the framework and introductory statement are entirely compatible.
We also tabled amendments—which we debated last Monday—to Clause 209. These make it clear that functionalities contribute to the risk of harm to users, and that combinations of functionality may cumulatively drive up the level of risk. Amendment 281BA would amend the meaning of “functionality” within the Bill, so that it includes any system or process which affects users. This presents a number of concerns. First, such a broad interpretation would mean that any service in scope of the Bill would need to consider the risk of any feature or functionality, including ones that are positive for users’ online experience. That could include, for example, processes designed for optimising the interface depending on the user’s device and language settings. The amendment would increase the burden on service providers under the existing illegal content and child safety duties and would dilute their focus on genuinely risky functionality and design.
Second, by duplicating the reference to systems, processes and algorithms elsewhere in the Bill, it implies that the existing references in the Bill to the design of a service or to algorithms must be intended to capture matters not covered by the proposed new definition of “functionality”. This would suggest that references to systems and processes, and algorithms, mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, cover only systems, processes or algorithms which do not have an impact on users. That risks undermining the effectiveness of the existing duties and the protections for users, including children.
Amendment 268A introduces a further interpretation of features and functionality in the general interpretation clause. This duplicates the overarching interpretation of functionality in Clause 208 and, in so doing, introduces legal and regulatory uncertainty, which in turn risks weakening the existing duties. I hope that sets out for my noble friend Lady Harding and others our legal concerns here.
Amendment 281FA seeks to add to the interpretation of harm in Clause 209 by clarifying the scenarios in which harm may arise, specifically from services, systems and processes. This has a number of concerning effects. First, it states that harm can arise solely from a system and process, but a design choice does not in isolation harm a user. For example, the decision to use algorithms, or even the algorithm itself, is not what causes harm to a user—it is the fact that harmful content may be pushed to a user, or content pushed in such a manner that is harmful, for example repeatedly and in volume. That is already addressed comprehensively in the Bill, including in the child safety risk assessment duties.
Secondly, noble Lords should be aware that the drafting of the amendment has the effect of saying that harm can arise from proposed new paragraphs (a) (b) and (c)—

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: Can I just double-check what my noble friend has just said? I was lulled into a possibly false sense of security until we got to the point where he said “harmful” and then the dreaded word “content”. Does he accept that there can be harm without there needing to be content?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: This is the philosophical question on which we still disagree. Features and functionality can be harmful but, to manifest that harm, there must be some content which they are functionally, or through their feature, presenting to the user. We therefore keep talking about content, even when we are talking about features and functionality. A feature on its own which has no content is not what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, my noble friend Lady Harding and others are envisaging, but to follow the logic of the point they are making, it requires some content for the feature or functionality to cause its harm.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: But the content may not be harmful.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Yes, even if the content is not harmful. We keep saying “content” because it is the way the content is disseminated, as the Bill sets out, but the features and functionalities can increase the risks of harm as well. We have addressed this through looking at the cumulative effects and in other ways.

Lord Allan of Hallam: This is the key question. For example, let us take a feature that is pushing something at you constantly; if it was pushing poison at you then it would obviously be harmful, but if it was pushing marshmallows then they would be singularly not harmful but cumulatively harmful. Is the Minister saying that the second scenario is still a problem and that the surfeit of marshmallows is problematic and will still be captured, even if each individual marshmallow is not harmful?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Yes, because the cumulative harm—the accumulation of marshmallows in that example—has been addressed.
Noble Lords should also be aware that the drafting of Amendment 281FA has the effect of saying that harm can arise from proposed new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—for example, from the
“age or characteristics of the likely user group”.
In effect, being a child or possessing a particular characteristic may be harmful. This may not be the intention of the noble Baronesses who tabled the amendment, but it highlights the important distinction between something being a risk factor that influences the risk of harm occurring and something being harmful.
The Government are clear that these aspects should properly be treated as risk factors. Other parts of the Bill already make it clear that the ways in which a service is designed and used may impact on the risk of harm suffered by users. I point again to paragraphs (f) to (h) of Clause 10(6); paragraph (e) talks about the level of risk of functionalities of the service, paragraph (f) talks about the different ways in which the service is used, and so on.
We have addressed these points in the Bill, though clearly not to the satisfaction of my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others. As we conclude Report, I recognise that we have not yet convinced everyone that our approach achieves what we all seek, though I am grateful for my noble friend’s recognition  that we all share the same aim in this endeavour. As I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Amendment 35, I was asking her not to press it because, if she did, the matter would have been dealt with on Report and we would not be able to return to it at Third Reading.
As the Bill heads towards another place with this philosophical disagreement still bubbling away, I am very happy to commit to continuing to talk to your Lordships—particularly when the Bill is in another place, so that noble Lords can follow the debates there. I am conscious that my right honourable friend Michelle Donelan, who has had a busy maternity leave and has spoken to a number of your Lordships while on leave, returns tomorrow in preparation for the Bill heading to her House. I am sure she will be very happy to speak even more when she is back fully at work, but we will both be happy to continue to do so.
I think it is appropriate, in some ways, that we end on this issue, which remains an area of difference. With that promise to continue these discussions as the Bill moves towards another place, I hope that my noble friend will be content not to press these amendments, recognising particularly that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has already inserted this thinking into the Bill for consideration in the other House.

Baroness Harding of Winscombe: My Lords, being the understudy for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is quite a stressful thing. I am, however, reliably informed that she is currently offline in the White House, but I know that she will scrutinise everything I say afterwards and that I will receive a detailed school report tomorrow.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for how he has just summed up, but I would point out two things in response. The first is the circularity of the legal uncertainty. What I think I have heard is that we are trying to insert into the Bill some clarity because we do not think it is clear, but the Government’s concern is that by inserting clarity, we then imply that there was not clarity in the rest of the Bill, which then creates the legal uncertainty—and round we go. I am not convinced that we have really solved that problem, but I may be one step further towards understanding why the Government think that it is a problem. I think we have to keep exploring that and properly bottom it out.
My second point is about what I think will for evermore be known as the marshmallow problem. We have just rehearsed across the House a really heartfelt concern that just because we cannot imagine it today, it does not mean that there will not be functionality that causes enormous harm which does not link back to a marshmallow, multiple marshmallows or any other form of content.
Those two big issues are the ones we need to keep discussing: what is really causing the legal uncertainty and how we can be confident that unimaginable harms from unimaginable functionality are genuinely going to be captured in the Bill. Provided that we can continue, maybe it is entirely fitting at the end of what I think has been an extraordinarily collaborative Report, Committee and whole process of the Bill going through this House—which I have felt incredibly proud and  privileged to be a part of—that we end with a commitment to continue said collaborative process. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 281BA withdrawn.

  
Clause 209: “Harm” etc

Amendments 281C to 281E

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
281C: Clause 209, page 175, line 17, leave out from “dissemination” to end of line 18Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the next amendment to this Clause in my name.
281D: Clause 209, page 175, line 18, at end insert—“(3A) References to harm presented by content, and any other references to harm in relation to content, include references to cumulative harm arising or that may arise in the following circumstances—(a) where content, or content of a particular kind, is repeatedly encountered by an individual (including, but not limited to, where content, or a kind of content, is sent to an individual by one user or by different users or encountered as a result of algorithms used by, or functionalities of, a service);(b) where content of a particular kind is encountered by an individual in combination with content of a different kind (including, but not limited to, where a kind of content is sent to an individual by one user or by different users or encountered as a result of algorithms used by, or functionalities of, a service).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes clear that references to harm presented by content include cumulative harm that arises or that may arise in the circumstances mentioned and, in particular, covers the case where this occurs as a result of algorithms used by, or functionalities of, a service.
281E: Clause 209, page 175, line 29, at end insert—“(4A) References to a risk of harm in relation to functionalities, and references to the risk of functionalities facilitating users encountering particular kinds of content (however expressed), include references to risks arising or that may arise due to multiple functionalities which, used in combination, increase the likelihood of harm arising (for example, as mentioned in subsection (3A)).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes clear that references to a risk of harm in relation to functionalities and references to the risk of functionalities facilitating users encountering particular kinds of content include references to risks from a combination of those functionalities.
Amendments 281C to 281E agreed.
Amendments 281F and 281FA not moved.

Amendment 281G

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
281G: Clause 209, page 175, line 33, leave out “and (4)” and insert “to (4)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new subsection (3A) into this Clause.
Amendment 281G agreed.

  
Clause 210: “Online safety functions” and “online safety matters”

Amendments 281H to 283

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
281H: Clause 210, page 176, line 12, leave out “section 11 (duty” and insert “sections 11 and 11A (duties”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides that the term “online safety functions” includes OFCOM’s functions under section 11A of the Communications Act 2003 (inserted by the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 149 in my name) regarding OFCOM’s media literacy strategy (as well as OFCOM’s functions under section 11 of that Act).
282: Clause 210, page 176, line 21, at end insert—“(2A) References to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” also include references to OFCOM’s duty to comply with any of the following, so far as relating to the use of a regulated service by a person who has died—(a) a notice from a senior coroner under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in connection with an investigation into a person’s death;(b) a request for information in connection with the investigation of a procurator fiscal into, or an inquiry held or to be held in relation to, a person’s death;(c) a notice from a coroner under section 17A(2) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 15 (N.I.)) in connection with—(i) an investigation to determine whether an inquest into a person’s death is necessary, or(ii) an inquest in relation to a person’s death.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that OFCOM’s online safety functions include the duty of complying with a coroner’s notice or, in Scotland, a request from the procurator fiscal, in connection with the use of a regulated service by a person who has died.
283: Clause 210, page 176, line 23, at end insert—“(4) In subsection (2A)(b) “inquiry” means an inquiry held, or to be held, under the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 2).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment defines a term used in the preceding amendment in my name.
Amendments 281H to 283 agreed.

  
Clause 211: Interpretation: general

Amendments 284 and 285

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
284: Clause 211, page 176, leave out lines 27 and 28Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment removes a definition of “age assurance” from Clause 211 as that term is now defined separately where used.
285: Clause 211, page 176, line 29, at end insert—““automated tool” includes bot;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes it clear that references in the Bill to automated tools include bots.
Amendments 284 and 285 agreed.

Amendment 286

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie: Moved by Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
286: Clause 211, page 177, line 7, at end insert—““freedom of expression”: any reference to freedom of expression (except in sections 36(6)(f) and 69(2)(d)) is to the freedom to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information (referred to in Article 10(1) of the Convention) by means of speech, writing or images;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment inserts a definition of freedom of expression into the Bill.
Amendment 286 agreed.
Amendment 286A not moved.

Amendments 287 to 290

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
287: Clause 211, page 177, line 10, after “91(1)”insert “or (Information in connection with an investigation into the death of a child)(1)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment revises the definition of “information notice” so that it includes a notice under the new Clause proposed in my name concerning OFCOM’s power to obtain information in connection with an investigation into the death of a child.
288: Clause 211, page 177, line 31, at end insert—““pornographic content” means content of such a nature that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment adds a definition of “pornographic content” to Clause 211 of the Bill.
288A: Clause 211, page 178, line 3, at end insert—“(2A) References in this Act to an individual with a certain characteristic include references to an individual with a combination of characteristics.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment makes clear that references in the Bill to an individual with a certain characteristic include an individual with a combination of characteristics.
288B: Clause 211, page 178, line 9, leave out “description” and insert “kind”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures consistency of language in referring to kinds of content.
288C: Clause 211, page 178, line 11, leave out “description” and insert “kind”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures consistency of language in referring to kinds of content.
289: Clause 211, page 178, line 32, leave out from “of” to end of line 34 and insert “—(a) software or an automated tool or algorithm applied by the provider of the service or by a person acting on behalf of the provider, or(b) an automated tool or algorithm made available on the service by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment revises an interpretative provision relating to the borderline between provider content and user-generated content. The provision is revised to use consistent wording about automated tools/algorithms made available by a provider (such as a generative AI bot), as used in the amendments of Clauses 49, 70 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 in my name.
290: Clause 211, page 178, line 36, leave out “(within the meaning of section 70(2))”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment of this Clause in my name adding a definition of “pornographic content” to this Clause.
Amendments 287 to 290 agreed.

  
Clause 212: Index of defined terms

Amendments 291 to 293

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
291: Clause 212, page 179, leave out line 3Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment removes the entry for “age assurance” in the index of defined terms as that term is now defined separately where used.
292: Page 179, line 3, at end insert—“age estimationSection (“Age verification” and “age estimation”)age verificationSection (“Age verification” and “age estimation”)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment adds definitions of “age estimation” and “age verification” to the index of defined terms.
293: Page 179, line 4, at end insert—“automated tool Section 211”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment adds a definition of “automated tool” to the index of defined terms.
Amendments 291 to 293 agreed.

Amendment 294

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie: Moved by Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
294: Page 179, line 22, at end insert—“freedom of expressionsection 211”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment adds a definition of “freedom of expression” to the index of defined terms.
Amendment 294 agreed.

Amendments 295 to 298

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
295: Clause 212, page 180, line 17, leave out “(in Part 5)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment updates the entry for pornographic content consequential on the amendment to Clause 211 which inserts a definition of that term into that Clause which applies for the purposes of the whole Bill.
296: Clause 212, page 180, line 17, leave out “70” and insert “211”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment updates the entry for pornographic content consequential on the amendment to Clause 211 inserting a definition of that term into that clause.
297: Clause 212, page 180, line 18, leave out “54” and insert “(“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment updates the entry for primary priority content that is harmful to children in the index of defined terms, consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name.
298: Clause 212, page 180, line 20, leave out “54” and insert “(“Priority content that is harmful to children”)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment updates the entry for priority content that is harmful to children in the index of defined terms, consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name.
Amendments 295 to 298 agreed.

  
Clause 214: Extent

Amendment 299

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
299: Clause 214, page 182, line 9, at end insert—“(aa) section (Sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film);(ab) section 171(2);(ac) section (Repeals in connection with offences under section (Sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film));”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment revises the extent Clause so that the provisions mentioned extend to England and Wales only.
Amendment 299 agreed.

  
Clause 215: Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments 300 to 302

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
300: Clause 215, page 182, line 37, leave out subsection (1)Member’s explanatory statementClause 215(1) specifies which provisions of the Bill come into force on Royal Assent. This amendment omits subsection (1), but only because it is being moved further down in the section and replaced (see the amendment in my name below).
301: Clause 215, page 183, line 8, leave out “The other provisions of this Act come” and insert “Except as provided by subsection (4A), this Act comes”Member’s explanatory statementThis technical amendment is needed because of the additions to the list of provisions which are to be commenced on Royal Assent (see the next amendment in my name).
302: Clause 215, page 183, line 14, at end insert—“(4A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—(a) Parts 1 and 2;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 3;(c) section 36, except subsection (4) of that section;(d) section 37 and Schedule 4;(e) sections 38 to 43;(f) section 47(2), (3) and (4);(g) section 48, except subsection (2) of that section;  (h) Chapter 7 of Part 3 and Schedules 5, 6 and 7;(i) section 63;(j) section 67;(k) section 70;(l) section 71(4);(m) section 73;(n) sections 81 and 82;(o) section 84;(p) section 85 and Schedule 11;(q) Chapter 3 of Part 7;(r) section 118;(s) section 140;(t) section 143 so far as relating to a duty imposed on OFCOM under Schedule 11;(u) section 174, except subsection (2)(b) of that section;(v) section (Time for publishing first guidance under certain provisions of this Act);(w) section 184(1);(x) section 187;(y) section 192;(z) section 194;(z1) section (Powers to amend sections (“Primary priority content that is harmful to children”) and (“Priority content that is harmful to children”));(z2) sections 197 to 201;(z3) this Part.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment specifies the provisions of the Bill that come into force on Royal Assent.
Amendments 300 to 302 agreed.

Defence Command Paper Refresh
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 18 July.
“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the publication of our refreshed Defence Command Paper. It is just over two years since we published the original Command Paper in March 2021. In those two years, our security has been challenged in so many ways. This is the Ministry of Defence’s response to a more contested and volatile world.
In the last four years that I have been Defence Secretary, I have been consistent about the reform I have sought to implement. I want Defence to be threat-led—understanding and acting on the threats facing our nation as our sole mission; not protecting force structures, cap badges or much-loved equipment but ensuring that we are focused on challenging threats.
I want the Ministry of Defence to be a campaigning department, adopting a more proactive posture, and our forces more forward and present in the world, with a return to campaigning assertively and constantly, pushing back those threats and our adversaries. I want Defence to be sustainable in every sense. For too long, Defence was hollowed out by both Labour and Conservative Governments, leaving our forces overstretched and underequipped. We must match our ambitions to our resources, our equipment plans to our budget, and take care of our people to sustain them in their duties. We must never forget the travesty of the Snatch Land Rovers in Afghanistan.
The 2021 Defence Command Paper was true to those principles and, with some tough choices, presented an honest plan for what we can and will achieve: a credible force, capable of protecting the nation, ready to meet the threats of today but investing heavily to modernise for those of the future; a force in which every major platform would be renewed by 2035, from armoured vehicles to Dreadnought submarines, frigates to satellites.
We did not plan on issuing a new Command Paper just two years on. Many of the conclusions of that Command Paper remain right: Russia was and is the greatest threat to European security, and China’s rapid military modernisation and growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and beyond do pose an increasing challenge to us all. However, I have always said that, as the situation changes, we must change with it. Since the first DCP was released, the world has shifted once more, from a competitive age to a contested and volatile world. The technology advances we predicted materialised. The threats and challenges we feared have manifested.
There is no more immediate threat than Russia. Its full-scale invasion of Ukraine was not simply an assault on a proud and sovereign nation but an attack on all our values, European security and the open international order on which stability and prosperity have depended for over three quarters of a century. Right now, the people of Ukraine are suffering the tragic consequences of President Putin’s illegal, unprovoked invasion. His naked aggression and imperial ambitions have played out in a tragedy of epic human suffering. The brave citizen soldiers of the armed forces of Ukraine are protecting their own nation and people, quite heroically taking on the once mighty Russian forces. The whole House recognises that they fight not just for their freedom but for ours. They are not just liberating their homeland but defending the rules-based system.
As Defence Secretary it is important to import the lessons learned from the conflict to our own forces. While I wish such lessons were generated in a different war, the conflict has become an incubator of new ways of war. They are proving the way for warfare in the 2020s—whole of nation, internationally partnered, innovative, digitised, operating with a tempo, precision and range requirement, and a recognition that there is a trade-off between assurance levels and operational impact.
I am proud, too, of the role the UK is playing in supporting Ukraine, whether providing equipment, training or political support, or galvanising European and international allies and industrial partners to do likewise. But the return of war to the continent of Europe, alongside growing threats elsewhere in the world, has meant that we must sharpen our approach. The integrated review refresh published in March outlined how we would do that. It would shape the global strategic environment, increase our focus on deterrence and defence, address vulnerabilities that leave our nation exposed and invest in the UK’s unique strengths.
Defence is central to all those efforts. That is why, after three decades in which all parties have continued drawing the post-Cold War peace dividend, this Prime Minister reversed that trend and provided Defence  with an additional £24 billion over four years. He and the Chancellor have gone further since, in response to the war in Ukraine. Next year we will spend over £50 billion on defence for the first time in our history. That is nearly £12 billion a year more cash investment than when I became Defence Secretary in 2019—a real-terms increase of more than 10%. This Government have committed to increasing spending yet further over the longer term to 2.5% of GDP, as we improve the fiscal position and grow our economy.
Our defence plans, and the Armed Forces to deliver them, must be robust and credible—not fantasy force designs, unfunded gimmicks or top trump numbers. As Russia has so effectively proven, there is no point having parade ground armies and massed ranks of men and machines if they cannot be integrated as a single, full-spectrum force, sustained in the field under all the demands of modern war-fighting. That takes professional forces, well-equipped and rapidly adaptable, supported by critical enablers and vast stockpiles of munitions. That is why in this document, honourable Members will not find shiny new announcements, comms-led policies driving unsustainable force designs or any major new platforms for military enthusiasts to put up on their charts on their bedroom wall. We stand by the Command Paper we published in 2021 but we must get there faster, doing defence differently and getting ourselves on to a campaign footing to protect the nation and help it prosper.
As I said standing here when DCP 21 was announced, we owe it to the men and women of our Armed Forces to make policy reality. The work was just beginning. In this refresh, we have focused on how to drive the lessons of Ukraine into our core business and on how to recover the war-fighting resilience needed to generate credible conventional deterrence. The great advantage of having served in Defence for some time is that my ministerial team and I have now taken a proper look under the bonnet. Consequently, we are clear that our strategic advantage derives from four key sources which require urgent prioritisation.
First and foremost are our first-class people. Our men and women are not just brave and committed but talented and incredibly skilled. They are our real battle-winning capability. It is our duty to ensure they are as well supported, prepared and equipped as possible, so we are going to invest in them. Last year, I commissioned Richard Haythornthwaite to conduct the first review of workforce incentivisation for almost 30 years. It is such good work that we are incorporating the response into our Command Paper, and today I am unveiling a new employment model and skills framework for our Armed Forces. It will offer our people a spectrum of service that allows far greater career flexibility, making it easier for military personnel to zig-zag between different roles, whether regular or reserve, or between the civil service and industry.
We are transforming our forces’ overall employment offer by adopting a total reward approach to provide a much more compelling and competitive incentivisation package. Since all our Armed Forces personnel deserve the best-quality accommodation, we are injecting a further £400 million to improve our service accommodation in the next two years. Many of us over Christmas will  have been frustrated by the poor support our service personnel and their families received from those tasked with looking after their accommodation. It is for that reason that I have withheld their profit and used the money to freeze for one year only the rent increases our personnel were due to pay. Taken together alongside such initiatives as wraparound childcare, they are intended to enrich careers and enhance the ability of our most talented people to keep protecting the British people, and to ensure they are rewarded and fulfilled while they do so.
Our second priority is further strengthening our scientific and technological base. We are already world leaders in specific areas, but to continue outmatching our adversaries we must stay ahead of the curve in digital, data and emerging scientific fields. In 2021, we said we would invest £6.6 billion in advanced research and development. In fact, we are now investing significantly more to stay ahead in the technologies proving themselves vital on the battlefields of Ukraine, such as AI, quantum and robotics. We are enabling a culture of innovation across Defence, pulling through those R&D breakthroughs to the front line. Following in Ukraine’s footsteps, we are increasingly sourcing the £100 solutions that can stop £100 million threats in their tracks, winning both the kinetic and economic exchanges of modern warfare.
Of course, our ability to do that depends on the quality of our relationship with the industry, which is our third priority. I am pushing the Ministry of Defence to form a closer alliance with our industrial partners. A genuine partnership to sustain our defence will mean doing things differently. Ukraine reminds us that time waits for no one. It is no good holding out for the 100% solution that is obsolete by the time it is launched. Often, 80% is good enough, especially if it means swiftly putting kit into the hands of our service personnel. Capabilities can be rapidly upgraded, spirally developed, for the relentless cycles of battlefield adaptation to win the innovation battle. Instead of sticking to acquisition programmes that drag on for decades, we are setting maximum delivery periods of five years for hardware and three years for digital programmes.
Our fourth priority is productivity and campaigning. To face this increasingly contested and volatile world, we need to make major changes to the machinery of the department and its methods. We are emphasising an ethos focused ruthlessly on the delivery of real-world effect, increasing the bang for buck in everything we do. This approach reaches into every part of the Defence enterprise, from the front line to the back office, and involves a major redesign of the department. We must shift our whole organisational culture away from the previous peacetime mentality to one where we live and operate as we would fight, focusing more on outputs than inputs and achieving a better balance between risk and reward. That means empowering people to live and operate alongside partners, and sometimes to be enabled by them when in lower threat environments. That means ensuring our equipment, whether Type 31, Challenger 3, or Typhoons, has the infrastructure and supplies needed to sustain operations more of the time and to deliver real-world effect wherever and whenever it is needed. And it means working with the relevant regulatory authorities—for  example, the Military Aviation Authority—to accelerate the experimentation, testing and innovating of new technologies, while remaining within legal bounds.
I want to emphasise one final aspect of the Command Paper refresh, namely the development of a global campaigning approach. We started with a review of our head office, where we broke out campaign delivery from policy formation and established integrated campaign teams. They have adversary focuses, not geographic, and will drive our enduring campaigns in the same way operational commanders lead our forces on deployed operations. The indivisibility of operational theatres in today’s world means Defence must be constantly ready to respond globally to safeguard our interests and those of our allies. Sometimes it will be to evacuate our citizens in moments of crisis, such as in Sudan; other times it will be to deter an adversary or reassure a friend. As we have shown through our support for Ukraine, the UK Government have the political will, but that matters only if it is matched by our military agility. Today, we are establishing a defence global response force. Ready, integrated and lethal, it will better cohere existing forces from across land, sea, air, space and cyber, to get there first in response to unpredictable events around the world.
Crucially, today’s paper also recognises that it is in the interconnected world and that the UK is unlikely to act alone. Partnerships are critical to our security and prosperity. In future, we will be allied by design and national by exception. Our support for NATO will remain iron-clad, but we will continue to prioritise our core relationships. We will invest in deepening relationships with our new partners. It is why we have invested to expand our global defence network, improving communications and co-ordinating defence attachés within our intelligence functions. None of that is headline-grabbing stuff, but it is the fine details that make the difference to our national security.
To conclude, the paper is the result of having several years in the department to understand where it needs most attention. That continuity in office is improving and I am incredibly grateful to the long-serving Minister for Armed Forces, my right honourable friend the Member for Wells, James Heappey, whose experience in uniform and public office provided the basis for this paper. We are grateful to the hundreds of individuals and groups who contributed to the first challenge phase of its drafting, from academics to serving personnel and industry representatives, not to mention the many Members of this House. Most of what we learned from them is encapsulated in the document.
This is likely to be one of my last appearances at the Dispatch Box. It has been the greatest privilege to serve as Secretary of State for Defence for the last four years. I thank my team, civil servants, special advisers and Members for their support and their challenge. All of us here have the common interest of defending this fine country, its values and its freedoms. Of all the many functions of government, Defence is the most important and is more important than ever, as the next 10 years will be more unstable and insecure. The men and women of our Armed Forces are second to none, and Britain’s place in the world is anchored in their professionalism and sacrifice. I believe we will  increasingly call on them in the years ahead. We must ensure that they are ready to answer that call. I wish them and whomever replaces me well. I commend the Statement to the House.”

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I am always grateful to the Minister for her co-operation and help when it comes to these Statements. There may be some differences, but our overall objective is the same, particularly at this moment with our support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Could the Minister initiate talks through the usual channels about a longer debate involving more of your Lordships’ House, perhaps in the autumn, when time allows? A longer debate on all these matters would be helpful for us. Could she consider that?
In the light of the work we have done between us, I particularly ask the Minister to relay our thanks to the Defence Secretary in view of his announcement that he is to step down. At this time, it is particularly important to note his leadership with respect to Ukraine and in building a coalition of support in NATO and beyond for that effort. I know that maintaining public support has been very important to him. He has been a Defence Secretary of integrity who has done all he can to strengthen our defence and that of our allies, including our nuclear deterrent and its modernisation. I would be grateful if the Minister could pass that on; I am sure it is a view held by many in this House.
On public support, can the Minister say what we are doing to continue our support for the Ukrainian people? Maintenance of their morale is crucial, and we can only admire their effort and resolve in the face of Russian aggression. In that vein, continued support in this country is also important. Can the Minister reiterate the measures the Government are taking to explain why we are involved in the conflict in Ukraine, and why it is so important for us all?
On the future, can the Minister assure us that an incoming Defence Secretary will not initiate a defence refresh 2 or indeed 3? It is crucial that the current Defence Command Paper is seen as a longer-term plan. To that end, with a general election approaching, what discussions are the Government planning to have with my right honourable friend in the other place, John Healey MP? It is important for our defence that this is an ongoing plan, with consensus built across Whitehall.
The defence plan contains a lot of strategic vision, including the demand to be a campaigning department and to tackle skills shortages, but it fails in some respects to outline in detail what changes to various other plans should be made. That is very important, since the Command Paper says, in a crucial phrase, that we have shifted
“from a competitive age to a contested and volatile world”—
mentioning Russia and China, of course, but other threats too, including those posed by terrorism and fragile regions. What does that mean for the current shape of our Armed Forces as envisaged two years ago, with the change being made in the Defence Command Paper?
The Defence Secretary says that we must
“match our ambitions with our resources”.
To do that, what ambitions have been left out? The defence paper also says we must match our equipment plans to our budget. Does that leave a shortfall? If so, in what?
Many questions are left unanswered in the Command Paper. Why does the paper not halt the cut in troop numbers—which, as we have seen, has led to the smallest number of troops since Napoleon—following the second-in-command at NATO, a British officer, saying that the British Army was now too small? I remind noble Lords that the Army has been cut by 25,000 since 2010 to 76,000 and, despite the threat from Putin, will fall again to 73,000 by 2025.
The defence paper confirms cuts in tank numbers. Despite equipment promises elsewhere, how can we be sure that the MoD can deliver them, given that just on Sunday the Defence Committee published a report into military procurement that said the system was broken? Thousands of skilled Armed Forces jobs remain unfilled, and supply is now a real problem. Again, little is said about how to address these problems now, although plenty is said about the future.
We fully support NATO and defence across the world with our allies, but troop numbers are being cut, as are tank numbers; one of our aircraft carriers remains in dock; Ajax is still a promise rather than a reality; there are problems in the engines of many of our new destroyers; Hercules transport planes have been scrapped while we will wait for the A400M; we have inadequate stockpiles; and defence spending at 2.5% of GDP is still an aspiration rather than a full commitment.
Many real questions come out of the Defence Command Paper. Of course we support the Government, but these are challenges that they need to address. The Government must reassure us that, in our support for NATO, we have the Armed Forces that we need.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, as so often from these Benches, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. There is nothing in his comments or questions with which these Benches would disagree, so I will augment them.
First, I want to express disappointment that the Secretary of State is stepping down. His time as Secretary of State for Defence has been important, and his leadership on the Ukrainian situation has been particularly significant. We can only hope that when the next reshuffle comes, the Prime Minister is able to find someone to serve as Secretary of State who can lead our defence capabilities and take this defence refresh forward effectively, because we are at a difficult time. The fact that we have a refresh after only two years is significant. It is clear that what was said in 2021 was not sufficiently forward-looking; we were looking at the threats of today and not those of tomorrow.
While much is to be welcomed in this defence refresh, so much of it seems to rely on the lessons we have learned from Ukraine. Great: we need to learn the lessons of the last 15 months, but are we thinking forward sufficiently strategically? What is being put forward, and what was outlined in the Secretary of State’s Statement yesterday, seems to be modest in its ambitions in many ways. Saying that we will not be  looking at new platforms is probably just as well, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has touched upon, defence procurement is an area where we have been remarkably weak. The defence platforms that have been procured—Ajax, the “Queen Elizabeth” class and various destroyers—have all come with problems.
What is being proposed in the defence refresh seems to be more limited in terms of procurement, talking about working closely with industry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I press the Minister on whether His Majesty’s Government have given any thought to their procurement procedures. It is fine to talk about working more closely with industry, but have they got their procedures right? What lessons have been learned in that regard?
It is noticeable that the new mantra being put forward is about partnership. When I have raised issues with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the years, I have stressed the need, post Brexit, for having closer bilateral relationships and stronger multilateral relationships. So it is good to hear that in a defence Statement, but it comes alongside this mantra of “allied by design, national by exception”. A cynic might suggest that is simply because alone the United Kingdom is too small to act in the way His Majesty’s Government have so often suggested they want it to act. The defence refresh talks about being more agile and having a role globally. Is that really feasible if we are sticking with the size of troops, whether regulars or reservists, outlined in 2021? Is it not time to think about troop numbers again? Do we have the size of forces that we need in this world of contestation rather than competition? Have His Majesty’s Government really thought this through adequately?
Finally, there is a suggestion that we need to think again about risk and how we view risk. Could the Minister explain what is really meant? Again, the Statement and the refresh document seem to be quite limited in explaining what His Majesty’s Government really mean about this.

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their helpful remarks at the beginning of their questions. I thank them particularly for their tributes to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Ben Wallace. I am very appreciative of the sentiments that have been articulated, and I think they are echoed across Parliament and the wider public domain. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to him as a “Defence Secretary of integrity” and I could not possibly disagree with that.
Ben Wallace and I first met in 1999, when, as absolute rookies, we stepped through the doors of the newly revived Scottish Parliament. I remember thinking at that time that this was a decent, principled, very solid young man. My opinion over these many years has not changed one jot. It has been an honour to be one of his Ministers. It has been a pleasure to work with someone with such a passion for the department and such a commitment to changing things for the better. I can tell from the comments I have heard within the department that he has been regarded as a very good steward of defence. There is widespread  admiration, and genuine regret that he has decided to step down. I will make sure that I convey the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to him.
A number of important points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised—I will include the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in my comments because she associated herself with the points he raised—the interesting issue of public support for the war in Ukraine. That is a very important matter. Generally speaking, people have been so shocked by the prospect, and now reality, of a third war in Europe when they thought that those days were behind us. I think the public understand that, in the very difficult age of hybrid and competitive threat in which we live, the defence capability within the United Kingdom is one of their best protectors. It is one of their gilt-edged insurance policies, which is trying to keep the nation safe and to exercise our influence in global affairs. I know that my ministerial colleagues have been active in disseminating that message. I have picked up some comment from those in the media that they too understand that. It is an important point and something we certainly need to keep looking at, because the one thing we should never take for granted is the safety and security of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the status of this Defence Command Paper refresh and asked whether a new Defence Secretary would have another one. I hope noble Lords will agree, having looked at the coherence and character of this refresh—I invite noble Lords to remember that this was not drawn up on the back of an envelope; it was distilled out of extensive initial consultation way beyond the MoD to stakeholders and academia. We genuinely wanted to find out from these informed sources how we should be shaping our Defence Command Paper refresh and making sure that it remained pinned to the integrated review refresh because the two have a synergy that must not be broken.
I think everyone recognised—again, I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who specifically raised it—that the 2021 paper was not sufficiently forward looking. What happened post 2021 is that the issues defined as the primary preoccupations of defence—the threat from Russia, the challenge posed by China, and the growing nature of threat and the hybrid form it can take and hence the unpredictability of how threat might manifest itself—did not, of course, take into account the conflict in Ukraine. Quite simply, that has galvanised thought.
The conflict in Ukraine has done two things. First, I think it has changed mindsets, not just on the part of the MoD, hence this refreshed Command Paper, but it has absolutely galvanised the defence industry, which had put a lot of its manufacturing production capability into deep freeze—thinking it was never going to be required. Secondly, it has galvanised attitudes across the world, not just within Europe and NATO. There has been a recognition that the unthinkable actually can happen. It is very foolish to imagine that you can allow yourself to remain unprepared for that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that, if she looks at the current refreshed paper and back at the 2021 paper, she will find that the broad shapes and  issues identified remain the same. But we have acknowledged in the MoD—and it is made clear in the refreshed paper—that we have to move at pace, with agility, flexibility and resilience that perhaps we did not anticipate three years ago.
The paper makes this very clear, both in its text and its graphics, because a picture tells a thousand stories. I was having a look through it and was very pleased to see some ladies in some of the images looking very fierce and doing all sorts of incredible things. If you look at this as a whole it is an extremely solid, well-structured and very coherent document. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that I do not see anyone wanting to change this any time soon. It has been built to last. It is specifically not about soundbite announcements. It is very deliberately structured to explain where we have got to, where we need to get to and how we think we do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned that there was no outline detail about the other plans. What is clear in here is that the whole sense of direction and the pace of change is accelerating. It is visible within this Defence Command Paper refresh how we are approaching that, whether we are embracing science and technology, whether we are embracing a new model for our people, whether we are embracing a new campaigning attitude and whether we are embracing putting MoD Main Building on to a campaigning footing, which we are doing. That is incredibly changing to the mindset that has prevailed in Main Building. This is not so much about the detail of what other plans may involve. The equipment plan stands; it is public. The orders placed for equipment and ships stand. We will need these things. They are all part of our holistic approach as we move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, very specifically raised troop numbers and mentioned Napoleon. I think more instinctively of Wellington—but never mind, we are even-handed in this House. I do not remember Wellington walking around benefiting from unmanned aerial drones or clutching a mobile phone and being able to control operations from five miles behind the source of conflict. The point is that we have learned from Ukraine that the capacity of technology, which also has moved at an astonishing pace, has completely changed how we look at conflict and how we cohere what we have. You will see repeatedly throughout this document a reference to the “whole force”. This is a very important recognition that we now look at how we contribute across our whole capability. We have contributions coming from five domains. This is no longer about looking at one single service and saying, “We’ll need to do more with that” or “do more with this”. What we have to look at is what the capability requires to address the threat that we think is out there and how we most intelligently cohere that capability to produce the response to that threat.
On troop numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is aware, we currently have 73,000 regulars and 1,000 reserves. However, something else is also clear in here, which I think is exciting. I often wondered, and have asked questions about, the silos in which our workforce existed. Those noble Lords who are familiar with the  Armed Forces will know that we have three distinct single services, a civilian cohort and incredible skills across all of them. That is why it is important to remember, as we approach this new age, as outlined in the paper, that it is about looking at the whole force and then working out which parts of the capability we need. I say to the noble Lord that yes, I am satisfied that the balance of numbers that we have across our single services is appropriate. We are never complacent. We constantly look at recruitment. We think that our Armed Forces offer a very exciting career for anyone minded to join them and we are doing what we can to improve on that offer and to make sure that it is an attractive one and that people will be minded to join.
I have tried to deal with all the points that have been raised. I hope that I have, but as usual I will look at Hansard and, if there is anything that I have missed, I shall write to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: My Lords, I add my tribute on the impending retirement of the Defence Secretary in the House of Commons. He is the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary and, especially in his role in connection with Ukraine, he has been outstanding. We will miss him. I am in many ways sorry that he did not get the job that he aspired to, which I once had the honour of holding. After all, he had the primary qualification that the Minister and I both have—he is Scottish. Sadly, that was not sufficiently appreciated among the other 31 countries and therefore, the Back Benches beckoned to him as well.
The Minister held up the document, and I could see that it has been well flagged by the department for her. It is called not “Refresh” but Defence’s Response to a more Contested and Volatile World. On page 63 it states:
“As set out in the IRR, the most urgent priority in the Euro-Atlantic is to support Ukraine to reassert its sovereignty and deny Russia any strategic benefit from its invasion. Our continued and unwavering support to Ukraine has shown the UK at its best”.
If that is the case and we are now involved in helping Ukraine in the existential battle it is undertaking with the Russian Federation, why is this Parliament debating and discussing this at the fag-end of the day, just before the Summer Recess? Will the Minister reflect on the fact that the last time we had a full-scale debate on the subject of a war in which we are participating was a year ago? Will she take the message back to her department and through it to the Prime Minister that Winston Churchill came to Parliament almost every week during the Second World War in order that the Parliament of the country was as involved in the conflict as Ministers of the Crown? I have made this point to her before, but it needs to go beyond her because I am sure she actually agrees with me. We really have to have proper debates about this matter; otherwise, documents such as this will lie on a shelf and will not help with the campaign or the fight any more than is happening at the moment.

Baroness Goldie: I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my colleague and friend Ben Wallace. I will convey them to him and direct him to Hansard. I know he will be much comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and I  know he will not bear any resentment that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, enjoyed what has eluded him. He is looking remarkably free and easy. He is looking positively liberated, so I think he is clearly anticipating with great pleasure whatever lies ahead.
I omitted to respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised at the beginning of his remarks about an opportunity to debate this in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has just articulated a very similar sentiment, which reminded me. When the noble Lord previously passionately expressed his disquiet and dissatisfaction with the amount of time devoted in this Chamber to debate on the Ukraine war, I did convey that, and I fully understand that this paper is a very significant component of our defence plans. Again, I will take this back direct to the Leader and the Chief Whip and say that there is clearly an appetite for more time to be set aside. Your Lordships will understand that in this House we do that through the usual channels. I would appreciate it if your Lordships would convey the same message through your avenues on your party Benches, because I think the Leader and the Chief Whip would find that helpful.
I am very clear about the significance of where we are now, with another war in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, indicated—an illegal conflict in Ukraine. The pivotal decisions that now lie in front of defence, our change of direction and how we will take forward this new model, genuinely require debate and discussion. I am very sympathetic to that, so I reassure both noble Lords that I hear what they are saying and I will repeat that as cogently as I can.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the refresh paper makes ambitious and encouraging claims for improving many defence issues. I am told, indeed, that the paper says “We will” nearly 300 times. Let us hope that the many advances in defence outlined will remain fully funded, and that it does not suffer the underfunded fates of so many of its predecessors. Can the Minister confirm whether the improvements trailed rely on firm delivery of the aspirational future 2.5% defence budget? Bearing in mind the increases due to inflation, are these also factored into the envisaged future programme?
Of particular interest are the many steps intended to improve on procurement—surely a vital issue following the recent Defence Committee’s scathing report on procurement entitled It is Broke—and It’s Time to Fix It. Many of the steps outlined make good sense: speeding up the processes; bringing industry in sooner; ensuring that there is production continuity, for example by maintaining a continuous shipbuilding pipeline, or avoiding skills fade by maintaining production lines for longer. Occasionally, it seems to be attempting to ride two horses at once, procurement being
“Allied by Design and national by exception”—
except for the use of homegrown technologies to reduce the risks of vulnerabilities to global supply chains. Does the Minister have any additional figure for the greater support of industry envisaged in this developing programme?
Reference is also made to increasing efforts to deliver an air and missile defence approach. Ukraine’s experience has rightly focused minds on this major gap in UK defence. What timescale is envisaged to bring this into operation?

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his observations and questions. I think they go to the heart of all of this, which is money, which the noble and gallant Lord specifically inquired about. The Defence Secretary has been very clear that we will live within our means and our means at the moment is 2% of GDP. But I remind your Lordships that we will have a budget of over £50 billion this year. By any comparison with what is available to other departments, that is a very hefty allocation of funding. The Defence Secretary was clear in the other place that he would like to see 2.5%; the Prime Minister has committed to that when fiscal and economic circumstances allow. That would be a very useful target to bear in mind. So this is costed within the resource we know we have.
The noble and gallant Lord made an important point about procurement. We have brought in important improvements, and of course the paper itself outlines what our new alliance with industry will be and what acquisition reform will constitute. I will not rehearse all that, but I was very struck by something that the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday. He said:
“In 2009-10, the average time delay on a project was 28%; it is now 15%. The average cost overrun was 15% on a project in 2009-10; it is now 4%”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/23; col. 792.]
We have been striving to bring in significant reforms. We have the defence equipment and support directorate; it is staffed with people who have both commercial and MoD experience. Noble Lords will see the proposal in the paper that we move on to five-year contract periods; I think that is a useful discipline. Obviously, some of the big contracts will be extraordinary and beyond that, but I think that is a useful working template.
The other important point that the Secretary of State made in the other place was that we have found out, particularly from the conflict in Ukraine, that whereas we used to want to look at, examine and procure the perfect, even if it took 10 years to get it, it makes far more sense now to look around and see whether there is something you can get off the shelf. You can buy it more cheaply, get it now and then adapt it. An interesting illustration of that is our ocean surveillance ship, RFA “Proteus”, which we bought off the shelf and have adapted ourselves. It will shortly be ready for operational activity. So I think some important lessons have been learned.
I also picked up something that I am going to commit to memory, which the Secretary of State said. He said, in defence procurement,
“never defer—either delete or deliver”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/23; col. 792]
I absolutely sympathise with that.
I think that what the noble and gallant Lord has been familiar with, and indeed was referring to, is some of these, frankly, disastrous procurement experiences where we have placed an order and changed our minds, and the industry partner has changed its mind. We have changed the spec and altered the price, and the whole thing has become like a fast-moving vehicle with no steering wheel and nobody trying to direct it. The reforms we have brought in, and particularly what is outlined in the paper, are going to be a very robust regulator of how we approach procurement in the future.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, I want to return to the issue of expenditure in due course, but before I do, I associate myself with the remarks made about the Secretary of State. He has performed his responsibilities in an outstanding fashion, with great commitment. Of course, it is perhaps helpful that in his particular case he was a serving officer in Her Majesty’s Army.
On expenditure, does the Minister agree that what the Government are seeking to do when it comes to expenditure is to create a virtue out of necessity? In putting that question to her, I have regard to the contents of page 3 of the document and, in particular, the paragraph on the left-hand side which begins:
“After three decades of drawing the post-Cold War ‘peace’”.
The Minister herself referred to part of the language thereafter. I want to unpack that language, if I may. It is clear that the 2.5% which is set out there depends on GDP. The estimated GDP for the United Kingdom economy this year is 0.3%. It does not seem to me to be a figure which would allow any movement towards 2.5%.
The other point that I want to make, and the Minister has already referred to it, relates to
“as the fiscal and economic circumstances allow”.
That is an entirely subjective test to be made at the whim, one might say, of the Government of the time. It is a test which, for example, could be blown away if the Government of the time were more enthused about expenditure on health or education, or something of that kind. Since we are talking about the Secretary of State, it is right to remember that there was a very public attempt by him to persuade the Prime Minister that more money in real terms should be made available for the defence budget. I am rather surprised by the expression—and the Minister may be able to help me with what exactly is meant by it—
“this ambitious trajectory also enables our modernisation for the challenges of the future”.
The trajectory is not only ambitious; it is entirely without foundation or substance.
We get some illustration of where this approach leads us if we look across the page at the paragraph that says:
“That does not just mean more ships, tanks and jets—indeed in this document there are deliberately no new commitments on platforms at all”.
The Minister has heard me—on a number of occasions—ask about the number of F35s that the United Kingdom is going to pursue, in order to ensure that those pilots who have been assigned to fly with that aircraft actually get the opportunity of flying one. I have heard it suggested that they should spend their time on simulators. Is that a serious suggestion? Respectfully, it seems to me that the Government’s ambitions are set out, but the substance by which they could be achieved seems to be a long way from the contents of at least page 3 of this document.

Baroness Goldie: First, I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments about the Secretary of State. When we talk about budget, we deal with two things: reality, and what this Government believe is a reasonable and attainable objective. Let me deal with the reality. Defence has received an increase to its  budget in the face of very difficult economic circumstances. That is recognition of the seriousness with which this Government take the current security environment and their responsibility to protect the nation and help it prosper.
The Prime Minister said—this is a Conservative Prime Minister speaking; I cannot speak for any other party—that we are committed to increased spending over the longer term to 2.5% of GDP as fiscal and economic circumstances allow. I accept, up to a point, the noble Lord’s proposition that that is subjective. It is subjective in the sense that the Government will have to interpret how the economy is performing and what the fiscal regime looks like. As the noble Lord is aware, we are trying to reduce the debt and bring inflation down, and I am confident that we can reach a position of economic stability in due course, but that reflects a Conservative Government’s pledge, and we want to hold good to it. That is partly because we believe in defence, and secondly because we think it is an attainable aspiration.
As I said in response to an earlier question, the equipment plan has been published. The noble Lord raised the training of F35 pilots. We have contracted out some training in order to seek help from Italy. That is happening but we maintain our operational obligations and we would never compromise the safety of our pilots or the professionalism of their status by doing anything that underperformed or threatened their training integrity. I am satisfied that the training regime is perfectly satisfactory; it is robust and is delivering the skills we need.

Lord Sterling of Plaistow: When you read this document, it is clear that it is vastly superior to the last one, published some two or three years ago. The thinking, ideas and viewpoints are extremely interesting. The sentence that captured my imagination is at the very beginning, in the ministerial foreword, and I shall read it out if I may.
“We must address increasingly complex and diverse threats, by maximising our own growing but ultimately finite resources, which necessitates ruthless”—
I repeat: “ruthless”—
“prioritisation and improved productivity”.
I spent many decades in defence and I have to say that I totally agree with the comments, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on how we deal in practice with productivity but particularly procurement. The noble Baroness was very polite. Our procurement in this country—in many departments, not just the Ministry of Defence—is shocking. It is a terrible thing to have to say that in practice, in everything I have been involved in—in the ministry and in other ministries —the way we do procurement and the quality of the people doing it is really letting us down in a major way.
The real problem is this. If we had a message tonight from No. 10 that at 4 pm tomorrow we will be at war, the speed of change would be extraordinary and everybody, from all parties, would pull together.  The speed of change, in procurement and everything else, would go through the roof. I know the Minister is saying that the Government are doing this and that, but in two years’ time, if we have not demonstrated that we really can deliver, I am afraid that the rest of the world will ignore us on the basis that we are no longer a country to contend with.

Baroness Goldie: I appreciate the significant experience in these commercial matters that my noble friend brings to these discussions. Interestingly, I had highlighted the passage he read because it attracted my attention when I was flagging the folder myself—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—not relying on one of my officials to do it, because I like to read as I go.
As I have admitted before in this Chamber, the history of procurement for the MoD has, at times, been a very unhappy one. The Secretary of State in the other place yesterday did not disguise that. He pointed out that procurement has been confronted and beset by difficulties, not over three years or 10 years but probably over 15 or 20 years or maybe even more. What we have seen in the MoD—and he referred to this—is that, on the basis of Public Accounts Committees, Defence Select Committees and observations from the National Audit Office, we have already taken significant steps to improve procurement. I referred to some of them earlier. I think this document—and my noble friend was very complimentary about it—spells out where we think we have to go in terms of efficiency of procurement, improved effectiveness of procurement and certainly increased productivity from defence. That is the course on which we are bound.
We are valued as one of the most important partners in NATO. I would say in relation to my noble friend’s last point that I think the United Kingdom is seen as a very serious, significant defence contributor. I know on my travels abroad the warmth and the interest that accompanies any visits we make to other countries. They want to know about us. They want to know what we are doing and how we are doing it, and they certainly want to be associated with us. They feel that we exercise influence, but underpinning that is a credible defence capability, not least our nuclear deterrent.
It has been a very interesting opportunity to hear views on this Defence Command Paper refresh. I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed questions and I end by saying that it has been a pleasure to support my right honourable friend Ben Wallace as Secretary of State and it remains an honour for me—at least for the moment—to be a Minister in the MoD.

Northern Ireland Troubles  (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
 - Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at 9.37 pm.